Socialized Health Care?

[Lucid]

There seems to be this big question lately, in the US, about socialized health care. I think it would be great if everyone could get free health care, regardless of their income, employment status, pre-existing conditions, or who they work for. I have a lot of friends who have a huge amount of debt because of their crappy insurance companies and others who can't afford to get sick or injured.
The insurance companies now seem to care little about the health or well-being of their customers and will deny claims or coverage any way they can.

The argument against socialized health care seems to be that in the countries which have it, the citizens pay outrageous taxes and that the care provided is substandard. We are told that the hospitals are dirty, poorly staffed and that it often takes weeks or months to receive treatment. Also, that doctors are paid very poorly and don't necessarily get to choose how they can treat people or where they get to practice.

So this is a question mostly for those living in countries that have socialized health care: What do you think of your system? Should the US adopt it? Is there some truth to the arguments against socialized health care I mentioned??

For those living in the US, should we have free health care for everyone? Is this a reasonable goal?

[yondyr]

Australia is one such country, Lucid. I wouldn't dare depend upon the health care provided - I could be dead before I reached the top of the list for treatment. For emergency care the service seems adequate but very obviously underfunded and understaffed for a city of 130,000 and servicing a further 1000km north of the base hospital. There may be only one specialist in any given field, or none and you are shipped to a city further south, always providing you survive that long.
Not being a country of savers, many are totally reliant upon such care. Being security conscious and financially careful, it was a relief to shell out the $A12,000 ($US9,000) for the pacemaker for my husband - he was in dire need.

[PortInStorm]

I'll have more time to answer later, but from Canada, I'd say go for it. I love the care I get- I've always gotten quality care in a timely fashion. Some have said they've had to wait, but I haven't experienced that. We do pay a lot in taxes (but no health insurance so wouldn't it equal out?), our facilities aren't dingy or dirty, our doctors do get to choose where and what they practice. We hear U.S. health care nightmare stories of people dying of completely preventable diseases, not getting any kind of say in treatment, not having any real choice of doctor... I feel safe in this system.

[rocksteady]

universal health care is great, but the US shouldn't worry about that until our dollar stabilizes and we are out of this recession that we are about to hit.

I think universal health-care run on a state-to-state basis is the best option. Also, the medical industrial complex needs a lot of work. Why is it that drug companies spend 50% more of their budgets on marketing instead of R&D? that is part of the real problem.

Also the supply of doctors is somewhat artificially limited, due to restrictions on graduation rates and malpractice insurance issues, the whole industry needs to be cleaned up.

[Lights]

universal health care is great, but the US shouldn't worry about that until our dollar stabilizes and we are out of this recession that we are about to hit.

I think universal health-care run on a state-to-state basis is the best option. Also, the medical industrial complex needs a lot of work. Why is it that drug companies spend 50% more of their budgets on marketing instead of R&D? that is part of the real problem.

Also the supply of doctors is somewhat artificially limited, due to restrictions on graduation rates and malpractice insurance issues, the whole industry needs to be cleaned up.

Well said. :thumbsup:

What is it that Norway and France are doing that they can get such good universal health care?

[Lucid]

universal health care is great, but the US shouldn't worry about that until our dollar stabilizes and we are out of this recession that we are about to hit.

I would agree, but I think that quite a bit of the reason for the recession is the health care problem.

[rocksteady]

I would agree, but I think that quite a bit of the reason for the recession is the health care problem.

maybe a little bit, but the housing bubble and the Iraq war aren't helping much.

[Lights]

maybe a little bit, but the housing bubble and the Iraq war aren't helping much.

Don't forget the staggering credit card debt. :yuck:

[Colette]

A good idea in principle, but almost never in practice. Countries based on such systems tend to end up with a burgeoning healthcare bureaucracy which swallows up the bulk of the funds intended for patient care, or it is run by boards which direct centralized funding into the wrong areas, because they lack fundamental clinical expertise.

On an ethical level, I'm not sure that free health care for all (other than, perhaps, children and elderly folk) encourages people into health lifestyles and sickness prevention measures.

[Lights]

A good idea in principle, but almost never in practice. Countries based on such systems tend to end up with a burgeoning healthcare bureaucracy which swallows up the bulk of the funds intended for patient care, or it is run by boards which direct centralized funding into the wrong areas, because they lack fundamental clinical expertise.

I always hear people make these claims, but they never seem to back them up. Do you have some specific examples you could cite?

On an ethical level, I'm not sure that free health care for all (other than, perhaps, children and elderly folk) encourages people into health lifestyles and sickness prevention measures.

To the contrary, in France, doctors are paid more if their patients take up healthier choices.

[Provoker]

Socialized healthcare is a good thing, but it isn't likely to be established in the US. People with money in the US tend to have an enormous impact on public policy. Bush spent 91 million for his campaign in 2000. To enter the political system one needs huge financial backing, as a result the politicians and policymakers are often accountable to their funders. Who got the contracts in Iraq? Haliburton. Who was the former CEO? Cheney. The idea of democracy is pure Walt Disney when the dollar has much more power than the vote. The upshot is that wealthy investors have a vested interest in preserving the status quo and so healthcare reform is unlikely to gain the support it needs to advance.

[Colette]

I always hear people make these claims, but they never seem to back them up. Do you have some specific examples you could cite?

Scandinavian countries are facing cost blowout because of their "Rolls Royce" approach to patient care, and have the highest personal tax rates in the Western world. See:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is from a briefing by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs which discusses the crises facing the Scandinavian welfare system (which includes free health, education, and subsidized labor market access):

Crisis in the Welfare State

However, the welfare state has never been an unchallenged system, either in Scandinavia or elsewhere, and in recent years the crisis in the welfare state has been high on the political agenda both in the Scandinavian countries and elsewhere. The crisis consist many individual elements and is partly due to the fact that the present welfare arrangements originated and developed in the 1960s and 1970s at a time of high economic growth and low unemployment. It has never been the intention either with unemployment, sickness benefits or with cash benefits that so many people should receive them or that they should receive them for so long as has been the case in recent years. The financing of the welfare state has thus become a problem, and as it has not been politically possible to increase taxes, which are already very high, the Scandinavian countries have accrued a very large national debt which on the long view could represent a threat to the welfare systems.

[Kfbr]

I am a full time student and cannot (due to the nature of time and only having 24 hours in a single day) work full time.

I have no health insurance, no dental and have many preventable problems that can be fixed with simple procedures I simply cannot afford to pay for. I came from a lower/middle class family and never really had health insurance. I feel for people in my situation, what the hell am I supposed to do? I cannot get Medicare because I am a full time student, which I pay into about 30-40 dollars a paycheck and I don't have any insurance through my company because I am a part time employee. I am simply.. fucked.

I got a toothache over the weekend caused by some leftover metal from a root canal I had done 5 years ago. The dentist that did the procedure is long gone and I got an examination the other day. $1200 dollars to get it fixed, a simple '15 minute procedure' is what the dentist said. My car isn't even worth that and so I'm doing the next best thing, praying to god that the antibiotics I was prescribed work so the pain doesn't kill me.

I lose 20-30% of my paycheck in taxes and I only claim myself as a Dependant. I pay shit loads in taxes and I deserve some basic healthcare, I don't give a damn what anyone who happens to be on the lucky side of an insurance coin says.

I would rather receive shitty healthcare than NO healthcare, as is my situation is now.

I am not a drain on society, I pay my fair share.

[anthrogirl]

It is a human right to be able to access health care. I do not understand how a rich country like the United States can spend so much on its defence budget yet leave so many of its citizens to a cowboy health care system. I have lived in two countries with socialised health care, New Zealand where I currently live, and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands I was in hospital twice and got fantastic health care in the hospital. The hospitals were really high tech, the staff very good. Our health care plan covered everything including natural medicine, eye care, dentist, mental health care etc. In New Zealand the health care is not so good because in the 1990's the government forced the health care system to semi-privatise and now there is long waiting lists for many procedures, although serious ones are handled quickly. When the government had the health care system totally under its care it was alot better. Americans are being lied to if they think socialized health care would bring a lower standard, the insurance companies are just trying to scare you all...

[quentin]

The average U.S. citizen pays more per capita for his or her healthcare than countries with socialized medicine. The U.S. sinks more money into healthcare than any other country in the world, and what do we get for it? Insurance companies keep scamming, hoping that Americans don't wake up to the knowledge that they would save money with a system of government-funded socialized health care. So the argument that the taxes would be too high is bullshit - we already spend twice what your average European does on healthcare through insurance! Funding healthcare through for-profit big insurance companies is a remarkably inefficient means of monetary distribution to hospitals and clinics.

[Solace]

I'm all for socialized medicine, after I pay off my student loans.

I think that's one of the unseen obstacles/ramifications to socialized health care in this country. If you were to socialize healthcare you would also have to socialize tuition like most every other country out there. Which in my opinion should happen. If not, you would have a massive shortage of doctors the very year you socialized medicine.

I'm looking at 250k in student debt when I get out of medical school and there is no way I'm paying that off making the salary of a doctor in Europe.

I would be more than willing to take a huge cut in pay if my tuition was free.

I really don't see that happening in this country though. It's been proven that the government makes more money by providing free education through the gi bill by the increased taxes generated over a college educated person's life time but do we see free tuition at state institutions? No, there is no concept of long term thinking in this country.

Until this country starts to fundamentally believe in shared responsibility rather than dog eat dog individualism none of this will ever happen.

[yondyr]

When I lived in the States, I belonged to Kaisers HMO, a bit like paying my insurance directly to the hospital, cutting out the middle man.

[thod]

The real problem with socialised health care is that it penalise the healthy. They pay out for the services but never use them. Most of the money is not spent on fixing broken arms and sewing up cuts. Its goes to the chronicly and uncurable sick. You can spend vast amounts keeping the elderly alive for another day or spending $50k a day on some drug to keep one man alive.

Its a fight we cannot win. People will die no matter how much you spend to keep them alive. Its learning to accept death. Health care costs means people are giving up their time to make someone elses life better. Its a tyranny of the sick. By all means fix a broken car but learn when its time to scrap the car too.

Its better to be free, to live your life, raise you family then die. than it to spend that life in poverty servicing the sick in the hope you will get to live a few, very expensive, years more.

[Solace]

The real problem with socialised health care is that it penalise the healthy. They pay out for the services but never use them. Most of the money is not spent on fixing broken arms and sewing up cuts. Its goes to the chronicly and uncurable sick. You can spend vast amounts keeping the elderly alive for another day or spending $50k a day on some drug to keep one man alive.

Its a fight we cannot win. People will die no matter how much you spend to keep them alive. Its learning to accept death. Health care costs means people are giving up their time to make someone elses life better. Its a tyranny of the sick. By all means fix a broken car but learn when its time to scrap the car too.



I have to disagree with this. First of all hospitals can't deny service based on cost. Second, I would imagine in socialized health care there is much more preventative medicine taking place than critical care maintenance.

The problem I hear the most about is how our system of medicine does not focus on preventative care. People can't afford to go to their doctors and so by the time it gets to the point that they have to, the costs associated with their care are significantly higher than if they had been getting regular check ups etc.

For example, I haven't been to see a doctor in 10 years because I can't afford health insurance. Tomorrow I could collapse and find myself in the hospital diagnosed with some late stage cancer which could have been diagnosed much earlier had I been able to afford a physician.

The problem now is the hospital can not legally nor ethically refuse to treat me and the costs associated with my care are huge compared to what it would have been had I been getting regular check ups and diagnosed sooner.

The tax payer is going to foot the bill either way because if I can't afford insurance I sure as hell am not going to be able to afford the bill.

I would argue health care as we have it now penalizes the healthy far more than in other systems.

[thod]

Why would a hospital not deny service based on cost?

If it going to cost $10 million dollars to keep you alive, then I say let you die. I am not one sided on this. I would not expect another person to spend the fruits of their entire working life to keep me alive.

I live in a country with socialised health care and there is zero preventive action. You cant force people to eat well or exercise. Also have not seen a doctor in 10 years simply because I have had nothing go wrong. Its free if I was to see one, but I have no reason to.

You assume the hospital is somehow obliged to treat you. You are that old broken down wreck of a car. Its better to scrap it than pay for repairs. Bye bye, time to die. Its immoral to place such burdens on the healthy. They need thier money to feed themselves and educate their children. Spending that cash on failing sick people who cannot be cured anyhow is a waste.

[Capt57]

Second, I would imagine in socialized health care there is much more preventative medicine taking place than critical care maintenance.


I agree with this. Many people do not go to the Dr. out of financial fear. Who can blame them? A simple appointment may cost hundreds of dollars just to learn that everything is ok. So we end up with what we have today...crisis care.

[Solace]

"Many come because they're uninsured or underinsured and they can't find a primary care doctor who will see them. Yet many also come because they don't have a primary care doctor, they can't get a timely appointment with their primary care doctor or they simply prefer going to the emergency department"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.^1574354&page=4

a 2005 survey by the Commonwealth Fund of sick adults in six nations found that only 47% of U.S. patients could get a same- or next-day appointment for a medical problem, worse than every other country except Canada.
....
The Commonwealth study did find one area where the U.S. was first by a wide margin: 51% of sick Americans surveyed did not visit a doctor, get a needed test, or fill a prescription within the past two years because of cost

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


The United States does spend more on health care, as an absolute dollar amount and per capita, than any other nation. It also spends a greater fraction of its national budget on health care than Canada, Germany, France, or Japan. In 2004 the United States spent $6,102USD per person on health care
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


etc.

I have no idea what system is best but cost needs to be taken out of the picture. The US does have one thing going for it and that is that it is currently the leader in advancing medicine. But for how much longer with the constant bloating of costs. Surely being the leader on spending as much as we do for health care there is a better way provide it for everyone.

There is something wrong when you are spending more yet providing less.

Out of pure selfishness I'd say keep it the way it is, my future paychecks are only bound to go up when I get my M.D.
To bad I'm not doing it for the money though :(

[PortInStorm]

Solace, in Canada we partially subsidize doctors' educations, and I think we've been toying around with asking that drs give the first 1-3 years going where doctors are most needed, in return. Would you say that's a fair trade off? Wondering your view.


And that stat on Canada being the worst for promptness in getting an apt stuns me. We have a 24-hour nurses line, emerg rooms, urgent care, after hours doctors phone numbers, and then your regular doctor. How could you not get treatment at one of those? I don't know... I only have experience of one province though.

And yes, from everyone I've met, we do get way more prevention. A good example is cancer prevention.

Thod, though heartlessly put, you're right that socialized health care countries do need to put guidelines in place for lifesupport etc. It's getting ridiculous, that is not directly the result of socialization of care though.

Colette, it's important to note that the quote was primarily concerning a welfare state, not socialized health care specifically. There is a huge welfare package that is bankrupting them, not just socialized health care. Additionally, if they were to have a bigger younger demographic, they might be able to still afford the whole package. Essentially, it's partially their fault for not having more babies- and I speak as part of a childfree woman by choice. Ya, ya, I know about the environmental implications, financial etc. As I say, I've chosen not to have kids myself, but if I'm impovrished because I don't have any social net left by the time I'm old (and I haven't saved enough), it'll be partially my fault.

[Bossy Mom]

The real problem with socialised health care is that it penalise the healthy. They pay out for the services but never use them. Most of the money is not spent on fixing broken arms and sewing up cuts. Its goes to the chronicly and uncurable sick. You can spend vast amounts keeping the elderly alive for another day or spending $50k a day on some drug to keep one man alive.

Its a fight we cannot win. People will die no matter how much you spend to keep them alive. Its learning to accept death. Health care costs means people are giving up their time to make someone elses life better. Its a tyranny of the sick. By all means fix a broken car but learn when its time to scrap the car too.

Its better to be free, to live your life, raise you family then die. than it to spend that life in poverty servicing the sick in the hope you will get to live a few, very expensive, years more.


Would you then condemn the chronically ill and terminally ill to die because it is a "tyranny of the sick"?

My daughter, now 17, was born with a fatal liver disease and had a liver transplant as a baby. She is looking forward to a wonderful healthy life and is planning to become a kindergarten teacher, wife and mother. I would never accept her death if she had a chance to live a full life.

I have always fought against socialized medicine. I have always worked hard and got the best jobs I could to make sure my daughter had good health insurance. That is one thing she won't have if the U.S. has socialized medicine. I worry about dirty hospitals, long waiting lines, etc. I would trust the free market over the government for taking care of my daughter. There is always a way.

Socialized medicine penalizes everyone but the government bureaucrats.

[thod]

My daughter, now 17, was born with a fatal liver disease and had a liver transplant as a baby. She is looking forward to a wonderful healthy life and is planning to become a kindergarten teacher, wife and mother. I would never accept her death if she had a chance to live a full life.

I am fine with that. Its a repair job and she can go on to live a healthy life. But most of the hospitals are in fact full of geriatric cases. They are not repairable, they consume the majority of the resources to extend life for another year. We all have to go some time and if it comes down to sending your kids to college or another year for granny then it goodbye granny. This is a life affiriming policy rather than a life extension one.

[1OFMANY]

I say its a bad idea...Other countries might make it work, but there is no way in hell it would work here. If any of you have ever experienced the federal government to any degree you would completely agree with me. The US govt fucks everything up it touches. Its only the great people who live in this country and work for such services that save it from itself.
/rant off lol

[Lucid]

I say its a bad idea...Other countries might make it work, but there is no way in hell it would work here. If any of you have ever experienced the federal government to any degree you would completely agree with me. The US govt fucks everything up it touches. Its only the great people who live in this country and work for such services that save it from itself.
/rant off lol

What about the fire department? That's run by the government.

[Lights]

Scandinavian countries are facing cost blowout because of their "Rolls Royce" approach to patient care, and have the highest personal tax rates in the Western world. See:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is from a briefing by the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs which discusses the crises facing the Scandinavian welfare system (which includes free health, education, and subsidized labor market access):

Hm...higher taxes but with free health care. And the only real drawback is national debt? We probably could have paid for 3 national health care systems with what we have blown on the Iraq War, so why not?

I say its a bad idea...Other countries might make it work, but there is no way in hell it would work here. If any of you have ever experienced the federal government to any degree you would completely agree with me. The US govt fucks everything up it touches. Its only the great people who live in this country and work for such services that save it from itself.
/rant off lol

Why does the US government fuck up everything it touches? What are some examples and how do they pertain to socialized systems? Lucid has a point. I thought we were proud of our fire and police services.

[Lucid]

I am a full time student and cannot (due to the nature of time and only having 24 hours in a single day) work full time.

I have no health insurance, no dental and have many preventable problems that can be fixed with simple procedures I simply cannot afford to pay for. I came from a lower/middle class family and never really had health insurance. I feel for people in my situation, what the hell am I supposed to do? I cannot get Medicare because I am a full time student, which I pay into about 30-40 dollars a paycheck and I don't have any insurance through my company because I am a part time employee. I am simply.. fucked.

I got a toothache over the weekend caused by some leftover metal from a root canal I had done 5 years ago. The dentist that did the procedure is long gone and I got an examination the other day. $1200 dollars to get it fixed, a simple '15 minute procedure' is what the dentist said. My car isn't even worth that and so I'm doing the next best thing, praying to god that the antibiotics I was prescribed work so the pain doesn't kill me.

I lose 20-30% of my paycheck in taxes and I only claim myself as a Dependant. I pay shit loads in taxes and I deserve some basic healthcare, I don't give a damn what anyone who happens to be on the lucky side of an insurance coin says.

I would rather receive shitty healthcare than NO healthcare, as is my situation is now.

I am not a drain on society, I pay my fair share.

I'm pretty much in the same boat as you and I know exactly how you feel. I owe $1200 to a hospital for an ER visit last spring and I have holes in my teeth I can see, but can't afford to get fixed. A few years ago I had an abscessed tooth.... it was a year before I could get it even looked at because I didn't have insurance. Do you have any idea how painful an abscessed tooth is? I was a few weeks away from having a friend pull it with pliers when I finally found a way to go to the dentist. I'm absolutely serious about that. I had started trying to convince one of my friends to just pull it. It hurt like nothing else. I couldn't sleep, I couldn't eat, it was hell.

Lights brings up a good point about national debt. We have insurmountable debt right now for a ridiculous war. But going into debt to improve our health and quality of life (the Scandinavians also enjoy the highest standard of living in the world... I think that's worth some debt) is unacceptable?

The average U.S. citizen pays more per capita for his or her healthcare than countries with socialized medicine. The U.S. sinks more money into healthcare than any other country in the world, and what do we get for it? Insurance companies keep scamming, hoping that Americans don't wake up to the knowledge that they would save money with a system of government-funded socialized health care. So the argument that the taxes would be too high is bullshit - we already spend twice what your average European does on healthcare through insurance! Funding healthcare through for-profit big insurance companies is a remarkably inefficient means of monetary distribution to hospitals and clinics.

I completely agree. It seems like the system we have in place now benefits only the rich and the huge insurance and pharma companies. If you're a middle class or working class citizen who's against socialized medicine, it seems like you've been fooled into voting against your own interests. Especially since the health care available in most countries with socialized medicine (England, Canada, France and the Scandinavian countries are good examples of this) has been shown to be as good, if not better than our own there really seems to be no reason not to do it... unless you're one of the few making money off the middle and working classes.

[1OFMANY]

What about the fire department? That's run by the government.

I am intimately familiar with "the fire dept.". You refer to it like its a federal organization. It is not. They are all, each and everyone a seperate entity, to exclude grouped org.s such as county districts, so the buerocracy that weighs down every single thing the fed tries to do doesnt really take hold in city/ municipal FDs.

[Lucid]

I am intimately familiar with "the fire dept.". You refer to it like its a federal organization. It is not. They are all, each and everyone a seperate entity, to exclude grouped org.s such as county districts, so the buerocracy that weighs down every single thing the fed tries to do doesnt really take hold in city/ municipal FDs.

So... why would socialized health care have to operate on a federal level? Instead of a more localized system like fire or police departments?

Regardless, beaurocracy is certainly a pain in the ass. But it's a lot more pleasant than, for example, having an abscessed tooth for a fucking year! Or, for another example, a tumor, diabetes, broken bones, cuts in need of stitching or any of the other myriad of health issues that are much more painful and much harder to function with than a tooth ache.

Beaurocracy sucks, but not half as bad as having to choose between eating and getting your prescriptions filled, or working a second or a third job to pay your medical bills.

My friend's sister had a baby a few years ago. The baby was born with a problem with her heart; one of the arteries didn't actually connect to the chamber it was supposed to connect to. At a year old she still looked like an infant. She needed open heart surgery or she was going to die and neither she nor her parents had health insurance. So they had the surgery and are now $250,000 in debt. These are working class people who make, at best, $30,000 a year. Their credit is screwed. Their debt to income ratio is ridiculous. They will never get out from under this debt. But it was either that or let their baby girl die.
You're worried about beaurocracy?

[thod]

Regardless, beaurocracy is certainly a pain in the ass. But it's a lot more pleasant than, for example, having an abscessed tooth for a fucking year! Or, for another example, a tumor, diabetes, broken bones, cuts in need of stitching or any of the other myriad of health issues that are much more painful and much harder to function with than a tooth ache.

These are all simple and cheap to rectify. Having a basic health service to deal with this is common sense. It would be wasteful of human resources to have someone die due to unstiched cut. The question is how far you are going to extend it. There are some super expensive drugs out there that can keep people alive but it would take the taxes of small town to pay for those drugs for the rest of a life.

[Lucid]

These are all simple and cheap to rectify. Having a basic health service to deal with this is common sense. It would be wasteful of human resources to have someone die due to unstiched cut. The question is how far you are going to extend it. There are some super expensive drugs out there that can keep people alive but it would take the taxes of small town to pay for those drugs for the rest of a life.

Why are those drugs so expensive? Or rather, why are they so expensive here when they're cheaper by far in other countries? As someone else mentioned on this thread, drug companies spend about 50% of the cost of medications on advertising. Also, there's a certain limit on drugs after which it's acceptable to make a generic brand. When this happens, the drug company will release a new recipe and jack the price up, just to prevent it from being made cheaply and generically. The pharmaceutical companies are as much a part of the problem as the insurance companies.

[yondyr]

I'm very leery about compulsory anything. Including health care. Although I recognise that I benefit from the safety net of free emergency care by paying a great deal more in taxes (real or disguised) than in many other countries. The same income upon which I pay American taxes, when declared here in Australia is subject to a much higher levy -fortunately I get a credit of the American tax already paid, but even so it proves to me that the US is a less taxing climate. I could quote many other instances of higher costs here from the 10% GST(VAT) upon every purchase, to the present cost of petrol(gas) at $US4.74 per gallon.

[1OFMANY]

All that is understandable. There needs to be a multi-pronged fix to many different aspects of US culture/politics before social medicine would work here. Immigration needs to be fixed, the pharm companies gouging the fuck out of everyone and their mother needs to be fixed, frivolous lawsuits needs to be fixed, a common sense, personal responsibility attitude needs to be adopted and enforced before we can approach such things. Until then we do the best we can.





1OFMANY added to this post, 9 minutes and 32 seconds later...

Instead of a more localized system like fire or police departments?

That would be a start but socialist types in govt would never allow it. For instance, I might live in an area where 90% of the people have jobs, dont do drugs, stay away from crime etc... in that type of an area we will have significantly MORE money to deal with significantly LESS medical problems. The ghetto monkeys who live in the neighborhood nextdoor would call foul, gripe, complain, do the squeaky wheel thing, and for no reason or effort of their own find a way to leech off the pool of resources that me and my neighbors worked hard for. Can you come up with a fix for that?

[thod]

Immigration needs to be fixed, the pharm companies gouging the fuck out of everyone and their mother needs to be fixed, frivolous lawsuits needs to be fixed

Immigrants dont realy effect this if they are paying thier taxes then they are funding the system like everyone else. Since they tend to be young and healty they would be net contributers.

Frivolous law suits can be removed by adopting the British system. The loser pays the winners costs. Nobody is going to sue you for $10 if they face paying the $10k the other guy spent in legal fees. You only sue if you are going to win. If a big corp wants to sue you the small man, the lawyer can defend you knowing he will get his fee form big corp when they lose the case.

Pharm companies are not gouging on the real rare drugs. Something that can only be extracted from the brains of 10 dead humans per dose is expensive to extract. It realy should be restricted to research labs but its theraputic value is established. There are no other production methods because there is no market. Such drugs often come scrutiny as the British NHS spends so much on them.

[errrzarrr]

Socialized Health is the way.

Don't let anyone fool you against your own interests and Rights.

Is US health system better than Socialized ones like Canada, Spain, French, Scandinavian countries? Answer yourself your own question.

[OneBadMother]

I do agree with the idea of socialized health care, when used in combination with income-specific taxing. Sure, your money's going towards some geriatrics, but since when has every single penny you've ever given to the government been used for causes you support? It's worth it if it helps save even a child's life or gives aid to someone who can contribute anything to society. Some of you say that it penalizes you to give your tax money to a cause like this, but it penalizes those in dire financial need even more. If anything, what we should be cutting down on is pork-barrel spending and general government corruption. Then perhaps we could get a better public educational system, better socialized health care, and a much better cause to pay taxes towards. Everyone wins.

[1OFMANY]

Socialized Health is the way.

Don't let anyone fool you against your own interests and Rights.

Is US health system better than Socialized ones like Canada, Spain, French, Scandinavian countries? Answer yourself your own question.

My interests and rights are just fine. As a member of the United States Armed Forces I have damn good health care, so does my family . I never pay a single dollar. SO I guess I could say its not my problem and not even contribute to threads like this, but I don't work that way.

I know there is no such thing as "something for nothing" in life. There definitely needs to be some changes to health care, no doubt about it. But I don't like mixing important things with the govt. The first thing people will do is start looking at how they can "get more for less" from the tax payer when they start getting their checks from the gub'ment! :P

[yondyr]

This is a multi pronged discussion. Corruption and waste in govt is one thing but not at all related to socialised health care since there's no surety that fixing the one means flow on to the other. I could say ending military spending would provide enough funds but...
I would suggest user pays, if one didn't have to also pay for the education of other peoples children - but that's another thread. I just need to compose the wording for the initial post.

[1OFMANY]

I would suggest user pays, if one didn't have to also pay for the education of other peoples children - but that's another thread. I just need to compose the wording for the initial post.


Thats kind of a mixed bag there. I benefit by educating other peoples kids because they contribute to the over all health of my nation. Educated people tend to make more money, commit far lass crimes, contribute to their communities, have less health problems etc.

Besides, there are only so many fast food jobs to fill lol.

[yondyr]

grins. and therein we part company, philosophically. I would suggest there are..just..too..many..people.

[prometheus]

It is a human right to be able to access health care.

Don't forget the "right" to have a roof over your head. The "right" to have food on your table. The "right" to have transportation. The "right" to be clothed. The "right" to be informed via the internet. The "right" to having pet companionship. The "right" to sit on your lazy a** and not have to work.
[/sarcasm]

With the Baby Boomers entering old age, and the current working (read tax paying) generation being more outnumbered by them each day, how HOW HOW could we possibly pay for "free" health care?

The US economy is crashing as we speak, and yet some have the brilliant idea that we give more tax funded hand outs? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I was a Captain in a fire department once. There is no reason that they can't be ran by volunteers (such as I was) and local donations. Or even more radically like they originally began, as money making ventures that sold fire "insurance" to the residents in the area of protection.

[errrzarrr]

Is amazing how people in a country does not vacilate about spending lots of money in guns/war/super-tech-bombs, but is afraid of a "expensive" (it's already expensinve anyway) health system that benefits themselves.

[1OFMANY]

Now now...no one said the word FREE anywhere. I have to give the commies credit where its due. If every citizen paid 20$ a week to the pot we could maybe entertain something along the lines of a standard health care..but then again who am I kidding. People think they are owed something for being alive...NM :)





1OFMANY added to this post, 3 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Is amazing how people in a country does not vacilate about spending lots of money in guns/war/super-tech-bombs, but is afraid of a "expensive" (it's already expensinve anyway) health system that benefits themselves.


Its those "super-tech-bombs" that keep weasels from doing stupid shit lol.

I love peace and the fruits that it provides. I also value the means of ensuring it.

Granted I bet we could do both with the same money if there weren't corruption on the earth. But we can only fix so many things at once ;P

[prometheus]

Is amazing how people in a country does not vacilate about spending lots of money in guns/war/super-tech-bombs, but is afraid of a "expensive" (it's already expensinve anyway) health system that benefits themselves.

The current spending on this "war" is as outrageous as the belief that we are the world police. Not all Americans support what shrub is doing, especially hairy red-neck Montana anarchists.

[1OFMANY]

The current spending on this "war" is as outrageous as the belief that we are the world police. .


Ill agree with that. I could do twice the job with half the budget!! :laugh:

[prometheus]

Ill agree with that. I could do twice the job with half the budget!! :laugh:

:suspicious: Not funny.

[Bossy Mom]

Let's show some respect and try to see the other person's point of view.

Do you want to know the biggest reason that drugs are so expensive? Research. It takes lots of money to develop new drugs to combat diseases and new antibiotics to conquer new strains of bacteria.

There are many, many reasons why our health care costs have sky-rocketed, and I am tired of hearing about the "poor" who can't afford it. Poverty is more often a behavior problem than anything else. When my husband became so ill he couldn't take care of us, I didn't just sit and whine, I did something about it!

Drugs, illegitimacy, broken families. How about the huge cost to cities like mine, San Diego, whose hospitals are being overrun by illegals who do not pay for their health care, so my medical costs skyrocket to cover them.

[Solace]

Solace, in Canada we partially subsidize doctors' educations, and I think we've been toying around with asking that drs give the first 1-3 years going where doctors are most needed, in return. Would you say that's a fair trade off? Wondering your view.

Yes, I'll keep it to that because I could open up a whole new can of worms with this one.


I worry about dirty hospitals, long waiting lines, etc. I would trust the free market over the government for taking care of my daughter. There is always a way.

Socialized medicine penalizes everyone but the government bureaucrats.

Would you mind providing evidence for these assertions?

My interests and rights are just fine. As a member of the United States Armed Forces I have damn good health care, so does my family . I never pay a single dollar. SO I guess I could say its not my problem and not even contribute to threads like this, but I don't work that way.

I know there is no such thing as "something for nothing" in life. There definitely needs to be some changes to health care, no doubt about it. But I don't like mixing important things with the govt. The first thing people will do is start looking at how they can "get more for less" from the tax payer when they start getting their checks from the gub'ment! :P

I believe the military and the health care provided for the military are both government managed institutions. They both seem important to me.

I also believe that there is ample evidence as to what happens to unchecked greed and lack of over site.The S and L scandal in the 80's and our current sub prime issues come to mind.



With the Baby Boomers entering old age, and the current working (read tax paying) generation being more outnumbered by them each day, how HOW HOW could we possibly pay for "free" health care?

The US economy is crashing as we speak, and yet some have the brilliant idea that we give more tax funded hand outs? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


It was already shown earlier in this thread that we as a country spend more per capital on health care than all those evil horrible countries who provide universal health care.

Let's show some respect and try to see the other person's point of view.

Do you want to know the biggest reason that drugs are so expensive? Research. It takes lots of money to develop new drugs to combat diseases and new antibiotics to conquer new strains of bacteria.

There are many, many reasons why our health care costs have sky-rocketed, and I am tired of hearing about the "poor" who can't afford it. Poverty is more often a behavior problem than anything else. When my husband became so ill he couldn't take care of us, I didn't just sit and whine, I did something about it!

Drugs, illegitimacy, broken families. How about the huge cost to cities like mine, San Diego, whose hospitals are being overrun by illegals who do not pay for their health care, so my medical costs skyrocket to cover them.

Once again, would you mind providing sound evidence supporting these assertions. If you could also explain why the exact same drug is much more expensive here than in another country, lets say Canada.

Here is an article that may help in your pursuit of an answer.
"Drug company profits, after all R&D costs, have long been more than double the profits of Fortune 500 corporations. In recent years they have jumped to triple and even quadruple the profits of other major companies"

"Americans pay for more R&D than any other country because the United States accounts for more sales than any other country. But while the U.S. accounts for 51% of world sales, it took 58% of global R&D expenditures invested in the US to discover only 43% of the more important new drugs"

I could keep going and going and going.

I couldn't resist one more and it's a beauty
"Drug companies claim to spend 17% of domestic sales on R&D, but more objective data reports they spend only 10% (National Science Foundation 2003)"
"Taxpayers pay for most research costs, and many clinical trials as well.

In 2000, for example, industry spent 18% of its $13 billion for R&D on basic research, or $2.3 billion in gross costs (National Science Foundation 2003). All of that money was subsidized by taxpayers through deductions and tax credits."
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Honestly, who's fleecing who here?

I see a lot of opinions flying back and forth with no solid evidence backing them up. I love a good debate but please provide some sound evidence supporting whatever claims are being made. Sound evidence = academic publications subjected to peer review, academic institutions, non editorialized news publications from a recognized organization, Scientific organizations not funded by political or economic interests on either side of the debate.

As NT's we should pride ourselves on seeking the truth, not just reiterating sound bytes provided to us by dubious sources at best.

There are a few other points throughout this thread I would love to respond to especially those dealing with ethics because there is nothing I love more than a good ethics debate. However, I have a feeling doing so would completely derail this wonderful thread so I'll leave it at this for now :) cheers.

[prometheus]

It was already shown earlier in this thread that we as a country spend more per capital on health care than all those evil horrible countries who provide universal health care.





If true, (please site source) can you imagine how much more expensive it would be after a corrupt bureaucracy milked it.

[Colette]

How about the huge cost to cities like mine, San Diego, whose hospitals are being overrun by illegals who do not pay for their health care, so my medical costs skyrocket to cover them.

Yes, illegal users of the public health system is a huge problem in all countries with state-subsidized healthcare. There is little hospitals can do to chase bad debt, and often the illegals are a transient population which will have moved on or even left the country before they can be followed up. The Hippocratic oath dictates to clinicians that they must treat all-comers in need, so they can't be influenced in emergency decisions by whether or not someone is entitled to the state funding.

IMO state funding should be channeled into preventive education, primary care, emergency services and emergency surgery (e.g for serious illness). Elective surgery and aged care should be largely a private matter, to be provided for by the individual and encouraged by appropriate tax relief. I see the state as a safety net, not a benevolent nanny, in this area.

[Solace]

If true, (please site source) can you imagine how much more expensive it would be after a corrupt bureaucracy milked it.

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

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

[prometheus]

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

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


404 on second (real source)

I'm questioning this because the tax burden in Scandinavian countries is greater than 50% and rising.

[Solace]

404 on second (real source)

I'm questioning this because the tax burden in Scandinavian countries is greater than 50% and rising.

You have to take into account that 50% includes a lot more than just health care. Most European countries subsidize education, transportation, arts, religion, Welfare, etc... to a far greater degree than the United States.

sorry about the broken link, must have been to long to copy and paste, if you click on the first post and follow it through there it works.

[prometheus]

You have to take into account that 50% includes a lot more than just health care. Most European countries subsidize education, transportation, arts, religion, Welfare, etc... to a far greater degree than the United States.


True but how / who is splitting out the health care figures? You know the three types of lies I'm sure.

But really it's a moot point, any type of socialism is theft. For my views on this point I'll point you to the following threads:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. My views of socialized medicine start on post 72.

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

[Solace]

True but how / who is splitting out the health care figures? You know the three types of lies I'm sure.

But really it's a moot point, any type of socialism is theft. For my views on this point I'll point you to the following threads:

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.

In this case, is the one conducting the study.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I did take a look at the first link and it was quite an interesting read. It's obvious we view things in a dramatically different light. I will admit I'm having a hard time finding a way to respond that won't derail this thread. I have a feeling it would be about as fruitful as an atheist debating a fundamentalist.

So I think in this case we will just have to agree to disagree. I was attempting to debunk some myths about the US health care system vs countries with universal health care not enter into a debate of Government vs No Government.

I hope that's satisfactory, it doesn't feel like it but it's the best I can come up with at 2:30 in the am. ;D

[Colette]

If true, (please site source) can you imagine how much more expensive it would be after a corrupt bureaucracy milked it.

The three biggest issues facing a socialized health care system have already been discussed on this thread - excessive and top-heavy bureaucracy, macro and micro mismanagement (usually by elected boards, but sometimes just by central government agencies responsible in the health area), and illegals who 'milk' the system for their own purposes.

As I stated earlier, this doesn't necessarily make the idea of such a system flawed in ideological terms; it just makes it difficult to achieve a level of perfection which would allow anyone to judge sensibly and rationally whether or not it's actually a wise use of taxpayers' hard earned cash.

[Lights]

Corporations are bureaucracies too, and they are certainly a burden in our current system. I don't see how a government bureaucracy could be much worse. To the contrary, it would probably be better since it wouldn't be actively trying to screw you over like our current corporate ones are.

[Capt57]

I used to work for a drug company and there is no way that the government could waste more money then they did. Buying lavish lunches and dinners and entertainment for Dr. and their staff not to mention every other ad on American TV is about prescription drugs. If the drugs have to be prescribed by a doctor why are they allowed to advertise to patients? All of this is enormously expensive and takes the majority of their budget. Drug companies in the US are mostly sales and marketing companies. They depend heavily on Universities and the NIH to do all the hard work of R&D. They are a sales and marketing machine run on greed. They also have the highest profit margins of any other industry in this country and have for a long, long time. Why else would you see so many TV ads? Major, major bucks!

[quentin]

I happily pay the 6% tax rate that funds the health care system I enjoy in Taiwan (the highest tax bracket is a shocking 20% - but those are few; the vast majority of people only pay around 6% income tax). If I need to get antibiotics for the flu or get a cavity filled for my tooth, I walk into a clinic and pay 100 NT (that's around $3 U.S.). It's really cheap and good for preventative medicine. However, you get what you pay for. The system is what you would expect from a recently developed country on the lower rungs of the first-world - it's all right for what it is, but not up to North American/West European/Japanese standards (Taiwan is roughly as developed/wealthy as Italy or New Zealand). This is one case where I wouldn't mind paying higher taxes if I could be guaranteed higher professionalism - with such a low tax rate (and half of that goes to the military), it's socialized medicine on the cheap. A distressingly typical Chinese mentality, unfortunately, try to get the cheapest bargain while ignoring quality. And healthcare is one area where going for the cheapest bargain is not....wise. If I ever had to have major surgery - life-threatening - I'd try to get it elsewhere (however, minor surgery I suppose would be fine). But my point stands - a healthcare system does not necessarily have to be ultraexpensive.

I'm shocked at how much cheaper medicine and medical procedures are over here. One of the side effects of globalization is increased "medical tourism". American senior citizens heading over to Canada for cheaper prescription drugs, and vice versa, wealthy Canadians heading over to the U.S. for a higher standard of professional care. I was very surprised to hear that Thailand, of all places, attracts a million tourists every year who come there for the cheap medical care - it's become one of Thailand's biggest booming industries in recent years.

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

[thod]

Market opportunity. Take sick americans and send them to Thailand, cover the whole cost from the sale of a kidney. Its not like you need two eyes to see. One could be sold off to the blind. There must be various body parts americans could sell to people in first world countries.

[1OFMANY]

And all these reasons and MORE are why I stated in the begining that socialized medicine is a bad idea in the US at this time. Too many things need to be put in a nice little row before people will feel good about it. Can it happen in the future?? Absolutely. Should we scam the poor/needy people by saying its a good idea and they DESERVE it? Hell no. I know its hard to believe but there are some greedy people in power in the US, and some of them run corporations, some of them run govt orgs, the free market and over sight is the opnly thing keeping them in check. You open a door to the tax payers wallet and it would be game on for people like that.

[PortInStorm]

As I stated earlier, this doesn't necessarily make the idea of such a system flawed in ideological terms; it just makes it difficult to achieve a level of perfection which would allow anyone to judge sensibly and rationally whether or not it's actually a wise use of taxpayers' hard earned cash.

It doesn't seem like the existing system is a wise use of taxpayers' hard earned cash. Has it achieved a level of perfection? And before anyone says getting health insurance is a choice (because paying taxes wouldn't be)- is it really? Isn't health care actually a necessity to not... oh, I don't know... die prematurally, painfully etc.? Getting and providing health care in the present way is not a wise use of the "hard-earned cash".

So which way is LESS unwise?





2ndtimestudent added to this post, 9 minutes and 35 seconds later...

Should we scam the poor/needy people by saying its a good idea and they DESERVE it? Hell no. I know its hard to believe but there are some greedy people in power in the US, and some of them run corporations, some of them run govt orgs, the free market and over sight is the opnly thing keeping them in check. You open a door to the tax payers wallet and it would be game on for people like that.

I'm not sure I see why it's wrong for people to expect others to provide health care for them. In one case, you pay the "greedy people" in insurance companies to care for you (ie. you do not pay the full cost yourself, you pay them a fee to cover the rest should you get ill), and in the other case, you pay what you call the "greedy people" that run the gov't to care for you. So both times, you pay someone else to provide you with health care- in both cases you say you DESERVE someone else caring for you because you pay them to care! In the case of insurance companies, you have no control over who's boss, and the free market has not kept them in check. In the case of gov't agencies, you have some control over the party that runs it, holding future elections over their head. Which would you rather have? Right now it's "game on" for the insurance companies. And the scam victim? Every single American citizen.

[Bossy Mom]

"I'm not sure I see why it's wrong for people to expect others to provide health care for them."

Maybe because it's a morality problem.

[prometheus]

"I'm not sure I see why it's wrong for people to expect others to provide health care for them."

Maybe because it's a morality problem.

Something along the lines of THEFT

I don't see why other people shouldn't be forced to buy me firearms and ammo, though.

[1OFMANY]

I think other people should also pay for a new video card for my PCs every 6 months.. BY GOD ITS A HUMAN RIGHT! lol

Look, I am all for being a team player and the whole everyone gets the same care yadd yadda crap. But it all boils down to Americans have too much capitalism in their blood to be weighed down with the burden of a socialistic system. One system leads to another and before you know it we look like every other psuedo-commie nation on earth. I would rather live with the crap we have now than to have my future/taxes/way of life dictated to me by a "government policy" enacted to "help" the poor.

no thanks..Ill stay poor.

[prometheus]

I think other people should also pay for a new video card for my PCs every 6 months.. BY GOD ITS A HUMAN RIGHT! lol

Look, I am all for being a team player and the whole everyone gets the same care yadd yadda crap. But it all boils down to Americans have too much capitalism in their blood to be weighed down with the burden of a socialistic system. One system leads to another and before you know it we look like every other psuedo-commie nation on earth. I would rather live with the crap we have now than to have my future/taxes/way of life dictated to me by a "government policy" enacted to "help" the poor.

no thanks..Ill stay poor.

Good post. You forgot new laptops too. How am I suppose to play Starcraft 2 if I don't have a dual processor. Damn it, I'm entitled to the pursuit of my happiness by killing Zerg.

[PortInStorm]

Wow, all it takes is a few seconds to read the next sentence guys. And only a few more to read the whole thing. Individuals under insurance or under "commie" health care DESERVE health care because they have BOTH PAID FOR IT.

Nothing like a cheap twist of words to avoid true thought.. Nice touch of McCarthyism too, paranoia's refreshing in the afternoon.

[yondyr]

yayyy love the humour...and taking a theory to an absurd degree to do it. If we can't laugh, we're in trouble!

[prometheus]

Wow, all it takes is a few seconds to read the next sentence guys. And only a few more to read the whole thing.

Nice little twist of my words, but I'm disappointed by the lack of originality!

So taking a portion of my earnings at the point of a gun to pay for your health problems isn't theft?

Please explain.

Also, why are your contact lenses more important, than my firearms? Especially considering I live surrounded by wolves and Griz bear. Hell, my "free" guns could be considered a sort of preventive medicine. :P

[PortInStorm]

So taking a portion of my earnings at the point of a gun to pay for your health problems isn't theft?

Please explain.

Also, why are your contact lenses more important, than my firearms? Especially considering I live surrounded by wolves and Griz bear. Hell, my "free" guns could be considered a sort of preventive medicine. :P

Refer to my last post re: both systems pay someone else to provide health care, so if socialized care is theft, then so is insurance. A company is forcing you to pay them to get health care .... someone arrest them! See the commonalities? You pay a company/gov't to provide health care for you. Yet one of them is a communist thief.

As to contacts, I don't pay the gov't to provide me with those, so I don't get them paid for. I presume you don't pay anyone to provide you with guns and ammo, so you don't get them paid for.

[1OFMANY]

You pay a company/gov't to provide health care for you.

Thats the difference. I pay by choice, not by taxes. If I want a different company I can chose a different one. Freedom of choice. And my "donation" at work goes to pay for *gasp* other people who WORK!!

Back to the free ammo and video cards btw ! :P

[prometheus]

Thats the difference. I pay by choice, not by taxes. If I want a different company I can chose a different one. Freedom of choice. And my "donation" at work goes to pay for *gasp* other people who WORK!!

Back to the free ammo and video cards btw ! :P


They seem to have a problem understanding the definitions of voluntary and mandatory.

Hey don't forget strippers with the ammo, and video cards.

[Gonzo]

Well said. :thumbsup:

What is it that Norway and France are doing that they can get such good universal health care?

Well i can't speak for France, but in Norway (where I'm from ;)) it can all be summed up in one word: OIL. I have the impression that in the U.S a lot (or all) of the oil is privately owned, but in Norway its all government controlled. Also i think we have a rather high tax % compared to other countries, but TBH I have no idea what others pay in tax :). Just to compare I pay 39% of my paycheck, and I have an average salary (maybe average +).

So I don't think Norway has some magic formula. We're just rich. Filthy rich! :thumbsup:

[Lights]

Well i can't speak for France, but in Norway (where I'm from ;)) it can all be summed up in one word: OIL. I have the impression that in the U.S a lot (or all) of the oil is privately owned, but in Norway its all government controlled. Also i think we have a rather high tax % compared to other countries, but TBH I have no idea what others pay in tax :). Just to compare I pay 39% of my paycheck, and I have an average salary (maybe average +).

So I don't think Norway has some magic formula. We're just rich. Filthy rich! :thumbsup:

Oh, so it is similar to the state of Wyoming here. They put their natural resource revenue taxes into a fund and use the interest to fund schools and provide scholarships to the state's community colleges and university. I guess socialized nations have an advantage that way.

[Gonzo]

It should also be mentioned that I think we have a very good balance between the public, and private sector here in Norway. Although I don't live in America, I think socialized health care would be very difficult for the U.S to pull off, mainly because you have such a dominate marked economy. And I can't say I see any changes there in the near future ;).

Peace out!

[Colette]

Something along the lines of THEFT


That taxes are legalized theft is a very trite and simplistic argument. I think you can do better, and this debate deserves it.

[prometheus]

That taxes are legalized theft is a very trite and simplistic argument. I think you can do better, and this debate deserves it.

OK I don't think X (war in Iraq, Drug laws, welfare, take your pick) is a good idea, in a free market (anarchist) society I choose not to voluntarily support this thing. In a nanny state totalitarian society I'm forced to support this program. If I choose not to pay the taxes to support it, I will have my property / earnings seized by armed men in ski masks. How is this different than a mugger wanting money for X (turf warfare, drugs, bling) putting on his ski mask, taking out his gun and stealing it from me?

Before you state it is sanctioned by the people (though this is still wrong i.e. two wolves and a sheep voting on dinner isn't right) keep in mind less than half the people in this country actually vote (legitimize) the system.

Ockham's razor.

You are not my Mommy, I don't need you telling me to eat my veggies because they are good for me. I'm a free man and make my own choices.

If you want to help the poor get health care, good for you, go get trained in the medical profession and volunteer your time, or pull out your wallet and pay for someones operation. Just leave me out of it, I'll give what I want, when I want, to whom I want. If you want me to pay for someones poor finical decisions, come and steal it from me yourself. What have you personally done to help these sick people you claim to be so concerned about, or are you one of the people who has made bad choices in life and now expect someone to bail you out?

Is this less "simplistic" enough for you?

[quentin]

People that rely on trite lines such as "taxes are theft" are putting their ideological principles ahead of their empirical sense. I don't care about your abstract theories of government. I care about what works. If healthcare works better if it's completely privatized, then I'm for privatization. If socialized medicine works better, then I'm for that. And as far as I can see it, as it has been empirically tested in the real world in real countries, the U.S. healthcare system is inferior to that in most other developed countries. It serves more people for a cheaper cost and is more efficient. The only advantage the U.S. system has is that it's better at Research & Development, and if you're super-wealthy you can afford to hire the best doctors in the world because they're attracted to the high salaries. And frankly, that last argument, that our healthcare system is really great at serving the lucky small percentage of really rich people that can afford it, is rather....problematic, to say the least.

There are few things more tiresome than political dogmatics. Let's try and focus on reality and the effects healthcare has on real people, instead of ivory tower ideology. Libertarian principles can be carried way too far just like socialist principles - and I should know, living as I do in the most libertarian country in the world (as far as the government is concerned).

[prometheus]

and I should know, living as I do in the most libertarian country in the world (as far as the government is concerned).

Which is?

If so many people think the ideas of socialized medicine are great, then they can donate their earnings to "free" medical clinics in their area. Under our current system they could even get tax write offs. But the problem with this is, the people who love socialized medicine don't make up the bulk of our society, most people would prefer to take care of themselves. The ones who want it are the ones who are looking to get treated (for free) first, or they are they ones looking to get a cut of the graft.

[Colette]

Is this less "simplistic" enough for you?

Not really. You're recycling old, tired, and ideologically simplistic arguments under the guise of "libertarianism". Taxes have been around for as long as civilizations have, and indeed are one of the hallmarks of a civilized society as distinct from barbarism. It is the way in which they are levied and subsequently directed, which is contestable, not the very phenomenon of their existence (oh, unless you're a contributor to talkback radio, or something).

[prometheus]

Not really. Taxes have been around for as long as civilizations have,

So has murder, rape, and disease, and I'd like to do away with them too.

I've tried to elaborate on what you claimed were my "simplistic" views, now return the favor. What have you personally done to help the people in need of health care who couldn't afford it?

[Lights]

*Bites tongue because he has been down this road before with prometheus*

I'm just going to say this. I appreciate that there are people like prometheus out there to keep the hardcore socialists and conservatives in check. I figure that if there weren't people passionate about their ideologies then nothing would ever get done because the moderate thinkers would spend too much time trying to collaborate and compromise on every little issue. As long as anarchists respect the laws of this constitutional republic they choose to live in, then I see no problem with their way of life. That is the only compromise I expect from them, because otherwise they become a leech on our society.

[prometheus]

*Bites tongue because he has been down this road before with prometheus*

I'm just going to say this. I appreciate that there are people like prometheus out there to keep the hardcore socialists and conservatives in check. I figure that if there weren't people passionate about their ideologies then nothing would ever get done because the moderate thinkers would spend too much time trying to collaborate and compromise on every little issue. As long as anarchists respect the laws of this constitutional republic they choose to live in, then I see no problem with their way of life. That is the only compromise I expect from them, because otherwise they become a leech on our society.

Dang I'll have to take back some of the bad things I've thought about you now.

It was easier picturing you as a card carrying commy.

I had to giggle about this statement: "to keep the hardcore socialists and conservatives in check" isn't that the job of moderates? Maybe you can see now that the whole Right - Left categorical system doesn't work. Have you taken this test? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

As for the "laws" I respect they are limited to the concept of NAP:

The non-aggression principle (also called the non-aggression axiom, anticoercion principle, or zero aggression principle) is a deontological ethical stance associated with the rights-theorist school of the libertarian movement (consequentialist libertarians do not base their ethics on it[1]). It holds that "aggression," which is defined as the initiation of physical force, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property, is inherently illegitimate. The principle does not preclude defense against aggression.

The non-aggression principle typically includes property as a part of the owner; to aggress against someone's property is to aggress against the individual. Thus, the principle leads to the rejection of theft, murder and fraud. When applied to governments, it has been taken to prohibit many policies including taxation and the military draft. When taken to the extreme, individualist anarchists argue that it calls for abolition of the state itself and protecting individuals from aggression through voluntary payments rather than taxation.

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

[Lights]

My perspective has become quite simple. I believe too much or too little of anything is a bad thing. That includes personal freedom, equality, righteousness, or even health care. I base this belief on the rule of moderation. Please consult any decent philosophical text from Aristotle to the present if you need a reference.

Thankfully, those who choose to live in excess of their values/beliefs usually tend to cancel each other out while inspiring change. Like alcohol, they are the cause and solution of all the world's problems. God bless them and their over simplistic ways. ;)

[prometheus]

I believe too much or too little of anything is a bad thing. That includes personal freedom, equality, righteousness, or even health care.


Here we go again, I'm tempted to sic a bunch of Bible thumpers on yo ass for your "personal freedom" choice of life style. They even have verse and stuff to back 'em up, saying you have "too much freedom".

Once again my freedoms end where yours begin. I can do anything I want as long as it's doesn't infringe on your right to do the same.

I should have know better than try to be nice, now you think I'm a mark who will give up my Rights, sheesh.

BEHIND ME SATAN, BEHIND ME! [/bad joke]

[Lights]

Here we go again, I'm tempted to sic a bunch of Bible thumpers on yo ass for your "personal freedom" choice of life style. They even have verse and stuff to back 'em up, saying you have "too much freedom".

Once again my freedoms end where yours begin. I can do anything I want as long as it's doesn't infringe on your right to do the same.

I should have know better than try to be nice, now you think I'm a mark who will give up my Rights, sheesh.

BEHIND ME SATAN, BEHIND ME! [/bad joke]

Oooooook...to get back on topic, what would an "anarcho capitalists" health care system be? I'm imagining it's something based entirely on a free market and volunteerism based on what I have read of your posts. What would be the pros and cons be in a such a "system"? Other than respecting your particular ideological beliefs, how would it be better than a socialized system?

And not to deviate from the topic, but I'm beginning to find it quite offensive that you keep bringing up my sexual orientation as justification for your arguments when it clearly has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You know nothing about me or the "choice of lifestyle" I have so I would appreciate it if you would show some common decency. It's especially inappropriate because it was not a contradiction to what I had said.

[prometheus]

And not to deviate from the topic, but I'm beginning to find it quite offensive that you keep bringing up my sexual orientation as justification for your arguments when it clearly has nothing to do with what we are talking about. You know nothing about me or the "choice of lifestyle" I have so I would appreciate it if you would show some common decency. It's especially inappropriate because it was not a contradiction to what I had said.

No you are wrong, you said: "My perspective has become quite simple. I believe too much or too little of anything is a bad thing. That includes personal freedom" you know damn well there are "conservatives" or "fundamentalists" out there that would use this exact same argument against your life style choice. So is it OK only for you to say this?

Furthermore, I'm not "outing you" you have posted this fact many times in many threads. If you are ashamed of this, it was poor planning to shout it from the roof tops. You call me an Anarcho-capitalist, which I've also admitted here, which is also a minority of the population..........hell, you have gone so far as to say it's a deviant philosophy, which I've never said of your sexuality.

You see if you want your Right to live as you see fit, it is only fair to allow others the same Rights.





prometheus added to this post, 6 minutes and 56 seconds later...

As for an A-C medical "system" I'll post about it tomorrow. I will say it would be cheaper than what we have to today, due to a lack of taxes, regulatory BS, and the monopoly created by the current requirements to be a doctor . It would offer more choices since the FDA wouldn't be blocking all the treatments people travel to other countries to get.............more tomorrow.

[Lights]

No you are wrong, you said: "My perspective has become quite simple. I believe too much or too little of anything is a bad thing. That includes personal freedom" you know damn well there are "conservatives" or "fundamentalists" out there that would use this exact same argument against your life style choice. So is it OK only for you to say this?

You left out "righteousness". I respect that they choose to live in accordance of their values, and whether or not they choose to respect mine is of little importance to me. There are plenty of "secular humanists" and "anarchists" out there who overvalue their personal freedom, and the way I see it, through their actions, they cancel out many of the "conservatives" and "fundamentalists" who overvalue their "righteousness".

Furthermore, I'm not "outing you" you have posted this fact many times in many threads. If you are ashamed of this, it was poor planning to shout it from the roof tops. You call me an Anarcho-capitalist, which I've also admitted here, which is also a minority of the population..........hell, you have gone so far as to say it's a deviant philosophy, which I've never said of your sexuality.

I've posted it once, in a thread about sexual orientation. You are the one who keeps bringing it up in completely unrelated threads. I'm kindly asking you to desist from doing so in this thread or any other as it has little merit in what we are discussing because you know very little about me or how I choose to live my life.

You see if you want your Right to live as you see fit, it is only fair to allow others the same Rights.

I never said any different. I only asked that you respect the laws of the country you choose to live in.

[prometheus]

I'm kindly asking you to desist from doing so in this thread or any other as it has little merit in what we are discussing because you know very little about me or how I choose to live my life.


There is a large percentage of our population that would like to make your lifestyle illegal. Hell, technically here in MT it IS illegal. I wouldn't be surprised to find similar old laws on the WY books. So when you start speaking of making more laws, or enforcing laws I see as being wrong I use it as a friendly reminder of the injustice of forcing your opinions / morals on a whole society.

You also know damn well I support your right to do as you wish, including sexually. Don't use a PC hot button as a escape route out of any corners you have boxed yourself into.





prometheus added to this post, 12 minutes and 57 seconds later...

If personal freedoms are not infringed, the "righteous" are limited to their soapboxes, and pose no threat to the individuals of the society.

Or do you think some "righteous" laws are a requirement of a society? Seriously?

You said: ...........too little of anything is a bad thing. That includes........... righteousness...

[confused] That is an odd stance.

[stasis]

The discussion about libertarian governments and the tenets of anarcho-capitalism has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

[Lights]

prometheus added to this post, 12 minutes and 57 seconds later...

If personal freedoms are not infringed, the "righteous" are limited to their soapboxes, and pose no threat to the individuals of the society.

Or do you think some "righteous" laws are a requirement of a society? Seriously?

You said: ...........too little of anything is a bad thing. That includes........... righteousness...

[confused] That is an odd stance.

Not really. Righteousness is adherence to moral principles. Too little adherence to moral principles would probably be a bad thing.

[thod]

There are some people americans do feed and clothe, they ensure they have a roof over thier heads and receive medical care. They are called prisoners.

Only in the US are the law abiding allowed to freeze with untreated ailments whilst the criminals have it all. What a strange nation they are.

[Lucid]

Which is?

If so many people think the ideas of socialized medicine are great, then they can donate their earnings to "free" medical clinics in their area. Under our current system they could even get tax write offs. But the problem with this is, the people who love socialized medicine don't make up the bulk of our society, most people would prefer to take care of themselves. The ones who want it are the ones who are looking to get treated (for free) first, or they are they ones looking to get a cut of the graft.

If we're paying for it with our taxes how is anyone being treated for free? The idea of socialized medicine is to prevent insurance companies from charging exorbitant rates and denying legitimate claims for ridiculous reasons and to make it so that health care is affordable enough for people who want preventative care instead of emergency care to have it. This is what's known as a straw man argument. When you purposely misrepresent the position of your opponent so that you can argue against it on your terms. It's a fallacy.

You're arguments aren't addressing the reality of the issue. You're responding to statements about why it isn't wrong to expect everyone to contribute to a system everyone benefits from by comparing health care to bullets, strippers and video cards.

You're entitled to your beliefs about health care, but if you can't do more than straw man and guilt by association us to death I'm afraid I won't be swayed by your points.

[1OFMANY]

I forgot what the damn thread was about in the first place now damn it!! lol

Oh yeah..socialized medicine. Can't work til we fix the afore mentioned things. But its a noble idea I am in no way against per se, its just common sense to see it won't work in our current environment, and we can't change our "environment" to please social healthcare issues. We just have to wait and see :)

[Lucid]

I forgot what the damn thread was about in the first place now damn it!! lol

Oh yeah..socialized medicine. Can't work til we fix the afore mentioned things. But its a noble idea I am in no way against per se, its just common sense to see it won't work in our current environment, and we can't change our "environment" to please social healthcare issues. We just have to wait and see :)

I think we should change our environment anyway and that by doing so socialized health care will become possible. Not saying it might happen in the near future, but I think we should start getting the ball rolling in that direction. Under our system currently (and I mean health care as well as most other things), it seems only the rich benefit and the middle or lower classes are getting fucked.

[1OFMANY]

Under our system currently (and I mean health care as well as most other things), it seems only the rich benefit and the middle or lower classes are getting fucked.

Thats only true in a very few circumstances. Health care being one. Only because they dont mind paying X amount for care a month when poor folks find it difficult to pay X.

Im a firm believer in capitalism and law. If people stop expecting things to be handed to them they would suddenly find themselves "unpoor" real fast. It works. I did it myself.

[Lucid]

Thats only true in a very few circumstances. Health care being one. Only because they dont mind paying X amount for care a month when poor folks find it difficult to pay X.

Im a firm believer in capitalism and law. If people stop expecting things to be handed to them they would suddenly find themselves "unpoor" real fast. It works. I did it myself.

With all due respect, saying that people are only poor because they're too lazy to do anything about it or because they expect a hand out is naive.

Calling socialized health care that everyone pays into and everyone benefits from a handout is a misstatement.

Here are some other areas in which the poor or middle class get fucked: the legal system, education, taxes. Those are just a few examples.

Obviously I don't know your situation, but I expect that if you became "unpoor" then you probably had help either from the government or from friends or family. If not, you are a rare exception and I would be interested to know what you did and why you expect everyone else to be able to do it as well.

On that note, expecting everyone else to be able to accomplish the same things you did regardless of their situation is unrealistic.

[PortInStorm]

I know its hard to believe but there are some greedy people in power in the US, and some of them run corporations, some of them run govt orgs, the free market and over sight is the opnly thing keeping them in check.

Nope, I don't have a problem with knowing the difference between something being mandatory or not.
- whoever runs the government is not mandatory. In socialized health care you "choose" the "insurance company" by voting. From the above quote, it seemed like 1ofmany was posing a choice between greedy people in corporations/insurance companies or greedy people in government. Yes, you can choose which insurance company you go to, and yes, you can choose which government to provide you with health care as well.

What I'm thinking is that both are the same: we choose which one provides our health care, they both take a portion of our money to redistribute it as they choose (and good grief, not all people with insurance are working, and most in a socialized system are), they both provide us with health care in return. It's just that in a socialized system, they actual place health first, not profits.

[Lucid]

Nope, I don't have a problem with knowing the difference between something being mandatory or not.
- whoever runs the government is not mandatory. In socialized health care you "choose" the "insurance company" by voting. From the above quote, it seemed like 1ofmany was posing a choice between greedy people in corporations/insurance companies or greedy people in government. Yes, you can choose which insurance company you go to, and yes, you can choose which government to provide you with health care as well.

What I'm thinking is that both are the same: we choose which one provides our health care, they both take a portion of our money to redistribute it as they choose (and good grief, not all people with insurance are working, and most in a socialized system are), they both provide us with health care in return. It's just that in a socialized system, they actual place health first, not profits.

Agreed. This pretty much sums up my feelings about it as well. It seems like in a socialized system more people would get care they need and that care would be slightly better than what we're getting now. With any system there will be problems, but it seems like more people will benefit under a socialized system.

[PortInStorm]

Thats only true in a very few circumstances. Health care being one. Only because they dont mind paying X amount for care a month when poor folks find it difficult to pay X.

Im a firm believer in capitalism and law. If people stop expecting things to be handed to them they would suddenly find themselves "unpoor" real fast. It works. I did it myself.
The only problem with that is some people aren't even given an opportunity to pay x for no fault of their own (ex. congenital defect, genetic diseases). And in a socialized system everyone has to pay "x" as well, whether they can afford it or not. So a socialized system does not let poor people off the hook in any way. It just allows health care for everyone, regardless of your health issues.

[prometheus]

Not really. Righteousness is adherence to moral principles. Too little adherence to moral principles would probably be a bad thing.

[Inigo Montoya voice] I do not think that word means what you think it means.

From Wiki:

Righteousness refers to the important theological concept in Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It is an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified, and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged" or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God. Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God. Psalms 2 speaks of one being shielded by God and receiving favor because of righteousness.

That's alright, I'd prefer my government and laws not tainted with this verbage. Reach past the Feeling and find the big red lever that says "Engage INTJ Thinking Processes".

[Lights]

[Inigo Montoya voice] I do not think that word means what you think it means.

From Wiki:

Righteousness refers to the important theological concept in Islam, Judaism and Christianity. It is an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified, and can have the connotation that the person has been "judged" or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing to God. Righteousness is also used as an attribute for God. Psalms 2 speaks of one being shielded by God and receiving favor because of righteousness.

That's alright, I'd prefer my government and laws not tainted with this verbage. Reach past the Feeling and find the big red lever that says "Engage INTJ Thinking Processes".

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

[prometheus]

You're arguments aren't addressing the reality of the issue. You're responding to statements about why it isn't wrong to expect everyone to contribute to a system everyone benefits from by comparing health care to bullets, strippers and video cards.

You're entitled to your beliefs about health care, but if you can't do more than straw man and guilt by association us to death I'm afraid I won't be swayed by your points.

Lucid, I sorry if you read that post that way. Most of your posts I enjoy, and find knowledge in. What I was saying was if socialized medicine is so popular there is a free market solution*. It was not a straw man, but a honest suggestion for a solution that wouldn't use force on others.

The bullet, stripper, video card points are the rational end of socialism. If someone claims a "right" to health care. Someone else will claim a "right" to housing. Then someone else will claim a "right" to food. Then someone else will claim a "right" to energy. Then someone will claim a "right" to.....well you can figure the rest of the path out.

The fundamental argument here is who owns you and the fruits of your labors. I will firmly and proudly be counted on the side that believes my life is my own, thank you very much.

* I'll repost that part since the forum settings didn't include it in this quote.

If so many people think the ideas of socialized medicine are great, then they can donate their earnings to "free" medical clinics in their area. Under our current system they could even get tax write offs.





prometheus added to this post, 9 minutes and 13 seconds later...

Nope, I don't have a problem with knowing the difference between something being mandatory or not.
- whoever runs the government is not mandatory. In socialized health care you "choose" the "insurance company" by voting.

I don't have insurance, I have savings for medical emergencies, that are above my Paramedic skills to treat myself. How would I fit into socialized medicine?

I do not want it. Period. If I didn't pay that portion of my taxes, what would happen? Seriously, think about it. I would have my property stolen by the government, if resisted They would try to jail me, if I resisted that they would kill me..................What you are planning is theft, and an initiation of force against me. Just so we are clear, you plan to steal my money to pay for your cold syrup, and bunion ointment, at the point of a gun wielded by a government thug.





prometheus added to this post, 3 minutes and 6 seconds later...

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

Your own source has 4 links for religious definitions, and only one that doesn't mention god. Can you see my confusion here?

[1OFMANY]

With all due respect, saying that people are only poor because they're too lazy to do anything about it or because they expect a hand out is naive.

Calling socialized health care that everyone pays into and everyone benefits from a handout is a misstatement.

Here are some other areas in which the poor or middle class get fucked: the legal system, education, taxes. Those are just a few examples.

Obviously I don't know your situation, but I expect that if you became "unpoor" then you probably had help either from the government or from friends or family. If not, you are a rare exception and I would be interested to know what you did and why you expect everyone else to be able to do it as well.

On that note, expecting everyone else to be able to accomplish the same things you did regardless of their situation is unrealistic.


No, I must be misrepresenting myself here. I guess I changed topics on you without warning.

The poor don't get fucked on taxes.( the top 1% of the wealthy in the US pay 30% the total tax collected) They do get fucked on education however.

And I never said they expect a handout per se, but creating a "social" pot that just anyone can take from isnt a good idea ATM.

[Lights]

Your own source has 4 links for religious definitions, and only one that doesn't mention god. Can you see my confusion here?

Indeed, which is why I went through the trouble of defining it in the context that I meant. :rolleyes:

[thod]

The bullet, stripper, video card points are the rational end of socialism. If someone claims a "right" to health care. Someone else will claim a "right" to housing. Then someone else will claim a "right" to food. Then someone else will claim a "right" to energy. Then someone will claim a "right" to.....well you can figure the rest of the path out.


Seems reasonable. You give all these things to free to guys in prison. Why should the model citizen go without them. Society can afford to thanks to production increases that have occured down the centuries. You hand out welfare because its cheaper than keeping a man in prison. A hungary man with a gun is desperate and desperate men do desperate things. When the alternative is a nice warm prison cell with food and health care its better than freezing to death.

Ever heard the word "greedy". The guy that wants it all for himself is not playing ball. Time to vote to distribute his assets. All this "I made my money myself" is crap. He got it by depriving the competition of it who would have done whatever anyhow. The strongest correlation of how wealthy a man will become is how wealthy is father was. You hold wealth by our consent, we can take it from you at any time, you have only one vote in it, so dont piss us off.

[1OFMANY]

Seems reasonable. You give all these things to free to guys in prison. Why should the model citizen go without them. Society can afford to thanks to production increases that have occured down the centuries. You hand out welfare because its cheaper than keeping a man in prison. A hungary man with a gun is desperate and desperate men do desperate things. When the alternative is a nice warm prison cell with food and health care its better than freezing to death.

Ever heard the word "greedy". The guy that wants it all for himself is not playing ball. Time to vote to distribute his assets. All this "I made my money myself" is crap. He got it by depriving the competition of it who would have done whatever anyhow. The strongest correlation of how wealthy a man will become is how wealthy is father was. You hold wealth by our consent, we can take it from you at any time, you have only one vote in it, so dont piss us off.


Honestly, that some of the craziest shit I have heard in a long time. And why are you so concerned about the people in US prisons? Do you feel they have "more than you"? Would it be very humane to throw someone in a cell with no heat and air and say HA HA SUCKA, YOU DESERVE IT?

I think you need to define your opinions and comments more sharply, lest you come back and say" NO, I didnt mean that how your saying."
If I can say what I think and still be allowed here then so can you :P

[thod]

Honestly, that some of the craziest shit I have heard in a long time. And why are you so concerned about the people in US prisons? Do you feel they have "more than you"? Would it be very humane to throw someone in a cell with no heat and air and say HA HA SUCKA, YOU DESERVE IT?

I think you need to define your opinions and comments more sharply, lest you come back and say" NO, I didnt mean that how your saying."
If I can say what I think and still be allowed here then so can you :PI would much prefer prison to death. The life of a prisoner is far better than that of a middle ages peasant. If the alternative is freezing to death because I cannot pay for the heating then I have no alternative but to go break a shop window and be locked up.

Why do you think you are so tough? That you can resist a group of armed men that want what you have. You have to keep the masses happy or they will take it. The US never did pay Britain compensation for the illegal confiscation of British land by force of arms.

[Lucid]

Lucid, I sorry if you read that post that way. Most of your posts I enjoy, and find knowledge in. What I was saying was if socialized medicine is so popular there is a free market solution*. It was not a straw man, but a honest suggestion for a solution that wouldn't use force on others.

Thank you! I often find merit in your posts as well and enjoy your contributions to the forum. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post. It seems like your basic objection to socialized health care is that it would add to taxes, which you are already absolutely against in all circumstances. However, we already pay taxes. We pay taxes for all kinds of things (for example, corporate bail-outs, which I mentioned previously) that don't do much to benefit ourselves. Suspending your views of taxes in general, can you say that health care would be a bad way to spend our tax dollars? Do you think it's a mistake to pay a bit more in taxes to provide everyone with health care? In the year 2000 there were 174 million people over the age of 18. Obviously the population has grown since then. What if everyone paid $20 a year? Now imagine if it was $50 a year. It would be a good start.
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


The bullet, stripper, video card points are the rational end of socialism. If someone claims a "right" to health care. Someone else will claim a "right" to housing. Then someone else will claim a "right" to food. Then someone else will claim a "right" to energy. Then someone will claim a "right" to.....well you can figure the rest of the path out.

This argument has the same problem as the "if we allow homosexuals to get married then next we'll have to allow brothers and sisters or humans and animals to get married." It's just not realistic. I can see how someone might make the argument that someone has the right to housing or a right to a method of heating that house. But video cards? Bullets? These are not essential for survival.

The fundamental argument here is who owns you and the fruits of your labors. I will firmly and proudly be counted on the side that believes my life is my own, thank you very much.

In an abstract, academic kind of way I agree with you. But in practice I think the "get your own" approach, when applied to things that are necessary for survival and for a healthy society, is fundamentally wrong. If you're doing fine monetarily how can you sit by and watch others suffer because they're less fortunate than you are? I have nephews, one of whom is 2 years old, the other 3 are 6. Sometimes the 2 year old will take a bunch of toys and put them in a pile and stand in front of them yelling, "MINE!" whenever his brothers want to play with one. He's not using them, he just likes having them. I'm certainly not trying to compare anyone to a two-year-old (although I consider it a compliment for anyone to be compared to my totally awesome nephews), but that's a bit how the "no, get your own" approach seems to me.
And no one person is able to do much to substantially help those less fortunate in a way that might actually make a difference for more than a day or two. It's something we need to do as a society.

If so many people think the ideas of socialized medicine are great, then they can donate their earnings to "free" medical clinics in their area. Under our current system they could even get tax write offs.

Unfortunately socialized anything only works if everyone contributes. Otherwise we end up with 5% paying into these medical clinics and 95% using their services for free. That's where it becomes a hand out. Maybe there could be some kind of agreement that some people might sign, saying that they will not pay into the system and thus waive all their rights to use it. There would be problems with fraud of course, but I think it might be a relatively workable solution if that is kept to a minimum. Maybe that's a way to compromise.

[Colette]

The discussion about libertarian governments and the tenets of anarcho-capitalism has been moved here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Thanks. This debate isn't (or shouldn't) be about the merits of the taxation system or capitalism generally. It is about how governments choose to fund and provide healthcare - a subset of the larger issue perhaps, but worthy of a more confined and focused discussion, IMO :)

Looks like more posts need to be moved since you split the thread!

[prometheus]

Thanks. This debate isn't (or shouldn't) be about the merits of the taxation system or capitalism generally. It is about how governments choose to fund and provide healthcare - a subset of the larger issue perhaps, but worthy of a more confined and focused discussion, IMO :)

Looks like more posts need to be moved since you split the thread!

Socialized medicine is directly tied to taxes, hence the focus on taxes. If there wasn't a problem paying for it, it would probably already be instituted.

If you just want an opinion on the idea (leaving out how the hell we are suppose to pay for it), a poll would be a better option than a thread.



Lucid, I have a lot to respond to in your post, I'll get to it in a little bit.

[Capt57]

Ever heard the word "greedy". The guy that wants it all for himself is not playing ball. Time to vote to distribute his assets. All this "I made my money myself" is crap. He got it by depriving the competition of it who would have done whatever anyhow. The strongest correlation of how wealthy a man will become is how wealthy is father was. You hold wealth by our consent, we can take it from you at any time, you have only one vote in it, so dont piss us off.

Good point. The vast amount of millionaires in the world are made through inheritance, not boot straping. There is a great deal of mythology surrounding wealth in the US; our economy depends on it. I remember reading a book on the ultra wealthy and the single greatest contributor to their wealth was luck. Although, they would be hard pressed to admit it. The truth is, the odds of you becoming a millionaire without inheriting money are very slim.

[prometheus]

Good point. The vast amount of millionaires in the world are made through inheritance, not boot straping. There is a great deal of mythology surrounding wealth in the US; our economy depends on it. I remember reading a book on the ultra wealthy and the single greatest contributor to their wealth was luck. Although, they would be hard pressed to admit it. The truth is, the odds of you becoming a millionaire without inheriting money are very slim.

OK now there is an army of two, grab your flails and pitchforks. Down with the ruling class, long live the proletariats.

Oh wait, the prols of Zimbabwe just did this.................and it has worked out soooo well for them. Here is a collection of info on how well it has worked out for them. 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.

[Lucid]

Lucid, I have a lot to respond to in your post, I'll get to it in a little bit.

No problem :)

[prometheus]

Thank you! I often find merit in your posts as well and enjoy your contributions to the forum. I'm sorry if I misunderstood your post. It seems like your basic objection to socialized health care is that it would add to taxes, which you are already absolutely against in all circumstances. However, we already pay taxes. We pay taxes for all kinds of things (for example, corporate bail-outs, which I mentioned previously) that don't do much to benefit ourselves. Suspending your views of taxes in general, can you say that health care would be a bad way to spend our tax dollars? Do you think it's a mistake to pay a bit more in taxes to provide everyone with health care? In the year 2000 there were 174 million people over the age of 18. Obviously the population has grown since then. What if everyone paid $20 a year? Now imagine if it was $50 a year. It would be a good start.
(To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)


If you do understand I'm completely against taxes, and fighting them on every front, you would understand how ludicrous you suggestion of just a little bit more taxes is to me.



This argument has the same problem as the "if we allow homosexuals to get married then next we'll have to allow brothers and sisters or humans and animals to get married." It's just not realistic. I can see how someone might make the argument that someone has the right to housing or a right to a method of heating that house. But video cards? Bullets? These are not essential for survival.

I really don't care if you take your dog and cat to the church and get them married. The government has no business in what is a personal matter, or maybe a church matter.



In an abstract, academic kind of way I agree with you. But in practice I think the "get your own" approach, when applied to things that are necessary for survival and for a healthy society, is fundamentally wrong. If you're doing fine monetarily how can you sit by and watch others suffer because they're less fortunate than you are? I have nephews, one of whom is 2 years old, the other 3 are 6. Sometimes the 2 year old will take a bunch of toys and put them in a pile and stand in front of them yelling, "MINE!" whenever his brothers want to play with one. He's not using them, he just likes having them. I'm certainly not trying to compare anyone to a two-year-old (although I consider it a compliment for anyone to be compared to my totally awesome nephews), but that's a bit how the "no, get your own" approach seems to me.
And no one person is able to do much to substantially help those less fortunate in a way that might actually make a difference for more than a day or two. It's something we need to do as a society.

If you are doing fine (hell even if you are poor) you can voluntarily help people as I did when I (for free) (voluntarily, as in by my own free will) trained as an EMT and helped my community. My argument never was let the stupid bastards die (though there is some merit to this argument) but was, a matter of forcing people to do it.


Unfortunately socialized anything only works if everyone contributes. Otherwise we end up with 5% paying into these medical clinics and 95% using their services for free. That's where it becomes a hand out. Maybe there could be some kind of agreement that some people might sign, saying that they will not pay into the system and thus waive all their rights to use it. There would be problems with fraud of course, but I think it might be a relatively workable solution if that is kept to a minimum. Maybe that's a way to compromise.

You see the socialist whole or nothing argument here why not with the ammo, video cards, and strippers?


I really don't think it's going to matter. This country is BROKE (as in there is no more money broke) Did you see what the head bean counter at the GAO said last week? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Did you know stocks are down 8% YTD

Have see this: The Philadelphia Fed index, a regional manufacturing read, tumbled to a reading of -20.9, versus forecasts for a small drop to -1.5. Any number below zero indicates contraction in the sector.

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

I could post another dozen indicators, if these don't convince you. We aren't going to be able to afford the medical handouts we currently have like medicade, etc., let alone add more. So it really is a moot point.

[Colette]

Socialized medicine is directly tied to taxes, hence the focus on taxes. If there wasn't a problem paying for it, it would probably already be instituted.

If you just want an opinion on the idea (leaving out how the hell we are suppose to pay for it), a poll would be a better option than a thread.



Lucid, I have a lot to respond to in your post, I'll get to it in a little bit.

There's a difference between the question "how do we pay for it"? and the question "are taxes a good idea"?

I'm just pleased Stasis spotted the difference - not that your arguments aren't worthy, just that they're not in the right place.

[xhaan]

Ok. I didn't read all this stuff, and well..

Social care is nice, as long as it is CARE.

Currently in the USA, people pay into the system for themselves basically, it isn't much different than other taxes except here the care seems to be a bit better, more prompt, and we have patient rights.

The people that can afford to pay, do so by having an insurance company. They basically are paying to not be sick, that's how the insurance companies make money, by betting on how many people pay which don't require care... so then when something DOES happen to you, all that money that was paid to the company can kick in for you (hopefully).

Social security, disability etc. you get what YOU pay into it, by working. If you never worked, you can't get SSD, you only get SSI. If you did work, you may get both of those depending on the situation. there are also organizations, and fundraisers, to help people who are broke, to get treatment. It's better than nothing, but it makes it difficult if you need a wheelchair that costs $3,000 or a prosthesis which can cost up to $10,000, or other medical treatments which can get into the hundreds of thousands over time.

I think things could be improved in the USA with health care, a lot of people still fall through because things are so damn complicated and difficult, even for healthy people, if you are sick you especially want to get better or have help and not have to jump through hoops all the time. But at the same time, I'm thankful for what we do have.

[Colette]

xhaan, I can assure you you do not have socialised healthcare in the US.

You must have some other country in mind :)

[xhaan]

xhaan, I can assure you you do not have socialised healthcare in the US.

You must have some other country in mind :)

I know, I never said we did. Was saying it could be nice, if it WORKED.

[prometheus]

There's a difference between the question "how do we pay for it"? and the question "are taxes a good idea"?

I'm just pleased Stasis spotted the difference - not that your arguments aren't worthy, just that they're not in the right place.


Okee dokee, how are we suppose to pay for it without taxes? See the funding is directly tied to taxes. If you want to talk about all the (supposed) good of the system why not have a fair discussion and include all the bad.

It's like the fundies saying "killing all them "towelheads" (their words not mine) has keep al-queida too busy to attack our homeland" and over looking the 100,000+ dead civilians.

Evaluate the good with the bad.

MTA: Dear Buddha, I'd Like a Pony and a Plastic Rocket. [/Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

[xhaan]

Okee dokee, how are we suppose to pay for it without taxes? See the funding is directly tied to taxes. If you want to talk about all the (supposed) good of the system why not have a fair discussion and include all the bad.

It's like the fundies saying "killing all them "towelheads" (their words not mine) has keep al-queida too busy to attack our homeland" and over looking the 100,000+ dead civilians.

Evaluate the good with the bad.

Either way, you pay. If you pay only for yourself, hopefully you have deep pockets... health care doesn't work for free.

[Colette]

Okee dokee, how are we suppose to pay for it without taxes? See the funding is directly tied to taxes. If you want to talk about all the (supposed) good of the system why not have a fair discussion and include all the bad.


I think the problem is that you're conflating the funding issue, with the management/system issue. They need to be separated out, for this debate.

[prometheus]

I think the problem is that you're conflating the funding issue, with the management/system issue. They need to be separated out, for this debate.

OK, talk all you want about your "candy rock mountain" structuring. Just keep in mind every aspirin you might (might) ever get was taken by the threat of the point of a gun from people who actually produce something, and someday might say enough is enough. Some people are trying to keep something resembling an economy (different than Zimbabwe) in this country. As for funding you are welcome to come to the other thread and justify your stance that is killing production and the whole economy in this country.

[iamnotspock]

I find it hilarious to think that pharma companies are producers. the hidden cost of their products is massive. this includes enormous side-effects (death) as well as the failure to address actual health issues. moreover, they are MASSIVELY funded by the USA government via NIH. go check out the NIH budget and where it goes before you argue with that.

and FWIW, aspirin was discovered in ancient China. that ain't a product of America by any long shot.

overall, the so-called producers are usually the biggest takers. that goes for defense sector, agribusiness, big pharma, and others that gobble U.S. tax dollars like fat Americans in a diet pill shop.

you want to fix the economy? how about not launching bogus wars that cost trillions, create large disabled populations, disrupt the lives of large numbers of workers, create massive spikes in the cost of basic input factors like oil, and drive up interest rates due to national debt.

[prometheus]

you want to fix the economy? how about not launching bogus wars that cost trillions, create large disabled populations, disrupt the lives of large numbers of workers, create massive spikes in the cost of basic input factors like oil, and drive up interest rates due to national debt.

I couldn't agree more on this point.

About the aspirin though, what I was saying was since they will supposedly be using their spanky new "free" health care system to get it, and it wouldn't cost them a dime, not to forget some poor tax paying sucker was picking up the tab, under threat of death.

[xhaan]

OK, talk all you want about your "candy rock mountain" structuring. Just keep in mind every aspirin you might (might) ever get was taken by the threat of the point of a gun from people who actually produce something, and someday might say enough is enough. Some people are trying to keep something resembling an economy (different than Zimbabwe) in this country. As for funding you are welcome to come to the other thread and justify your stance that is killing production and the whole economy in this country.

Who said anything about production?? (though I'll admit I havn't read the other posts, but I hadn't thought of this..)

And what's this about 'free health care'? There is no such illusion.
Somebody has to pay for it, and it is most often the people who need it the least (as it makes no sense to try and force money from people who dont have any.) So either everyone (who can) pays a little, or the people who need it pay all for themselves.

Also, most of the disabled population aren't all that 'disabled', a whole lot of people simply need a boost, so they can be productive and self-supporting. Not everyone is a vegetable, or a sponge. With a lot of people, some specific treatments or some assistive devices, and they're ready to go.. and may actually benefit society as a whole.

Edit:
And another thing.
This poor planning stuff that I see you talking about, is so stacked against you on so many levels, that it's absurd.

Picture this, if you will:
Kid comes from a poor family, therefore has no inheritance or assets to start with, but works really hard and ends up going to college (a.k.a university) to make something out of his/her self... he has put everything he has into going to university in order to later on hopefully land a well paying job, in order to have this planning and security that you seem to speak of. But before he can, he gets hit by a bus from no fault of his own, or ends up getting meningococcal septicemia (something REALLY nasty which often results in amputation ranging from fingers and toes, to all four limbs). Not only does this knock him out of school for a while and hurt his studies, he now has school debts along with huge medical bills.

Now, what would you rather have; a system in place to help people like this, which may get abused by unscrupulous people, or have no system at all, which screws everybody, and say 'oops, sucks to be you.'?

[Lucid]

This is turning out to be an awesome debate, IMO. I have lots to say and will post responses galore when I return from buying my ridiculously overpriced school books for the semester (you want to talk about people with no money getting ripped off, there's a place to start!).

[prometheus]

Now, what would you rather have; a system in place to help people like this, which may get abused by unscrupulous people, or have no system at all, which screws everybody, and say 'oops, sucks to be you.'?

I'd rather see the private charity system of days past, when people had more money to help because they weren't having 50-80% of their earnings taken by taxes.

[thod]

If you have more money in your pocket you do not get to buy more. All that happens is that asset (home prices) rise to take that money. They are competative and not fixed you simply end up paying a bigger mortgage with no health care. The alternative is a health care and a smaller mortgage. The other people wont be able to bid up prices since they are paying out the taxes too. For most people the mortgage is their single biggest expense.

[prometheus]

If you have more money in your pocket you do not get to buy more. All that happens is that asset (home prices) rise to take that money. They are competative and not fixed you simply end up paying a bigger mortgage with no health care. The alternative is a health care and a smaller mortgage. The other people wont be able to bid up prices since they are paying out the taxes too. For most people the mortgage is their single biggest expense.


This is completely ignoring the supply end. What, do you think those FRN's (Federal reserve Notes) are sneaking out at night and changing numbers on price lists? I think you are trying to address the fiat currency system and it's ties to inflation, but using Marxist spin language. The fault of the rising prices in an inflationary situation is not the producers working harder, but the government printing more unbacked worthless currency.

Your whole paragraph is based on the assumption that there is no production taking place. That all monetary instruments are backed by nothing but the government's word, which today is true, and it is also true that we produce just a fraction of the real goods this country one did. But, the solution is not the Zimbabwe model of printing more fiat currency to make up for the losses in production. The only real solution is a return to the Gold Standard (or any other commodity tie), termination of taxes and regulatory limitations on businesses, thereby giving the producers a chance to be competitive.

Controlling all facets of production, property ownership, and wealth redistribution was tested in the CCCP and we all know how well that worked out.





prometheus added to this post, 21 minutes and 57 seconds later...


Picture this, if you will:
Kid comes from a poor family, therefore has no inheritance or assets to start with, but works really hard and ends up going to college (a.k.a university) to make something out of his/her self... he has put everything he has into going to university in order to later on hopefully land a well paying job, in order to have this planning and security that you seem to speak of. But before he can, he gets hit by a bus from no fault of his own, or ends up getting meningococcal septicemia (something REALLY nasty which often results in amputation ranging from fingers and toes, to all four limbs). Not only does this knock him out of school for a while and hurt his studies, he now has school debts along with huge medical bills.

Now, what would you rather have; a system in place to help people like this, which may get abused by unscrupulous people, or have no system at all, which screws everybody, and say 'oops, sucks to be you.'?

OK picture this same young person, but with a sense of self responsibility. He graduates High School, let's assume he is still living at home at this point, (because that is statistically correct) has very little in the way of bills, he might even have some savings from working summers, and not going to all the keggers. Now he could go directly to university, go travel through Europe depleting his savings, or he could go to work for one year (probably as the lowest peon) in whatever field he is thinking about studying, and adding to his savings.


You see, there is still an option for people to be responsible for themselves, but few if any choose it. It seems like you didn't even think of this as an option.

So at some point he has these medical problems, it will cost him his savings, and he might have some bills to pay off. But he won't die, and he will still be an independent, responsible, individual that doesn't expect everything in life to be handed to him.

Or...........he could have taken the most common path today, and sucked off his parents all through High School, going to keggers, screwing anything with two legs, and then expected the world to hand him a college education, health care, and some high paying executive job.

[thod]

When you cut taxes people do not proportianaly consume more. They stil eat the same amount of food. They may consume a bit more, that means more profits to the rich who own the production. The bulk though goes into financing a bigger mortgage it has to be bigger because prices have just gone up since everyone now has more spending power. The result is the more profits to the rich. The poor guys living standard stays the same.

Money supply is linked to taxation. Reduced taxation has exactly the same effect as increasing money supply. Increased taxation the reverse, its even better than issuing bonds to remove money.

Zimabawe is hardly relevant. Its mismanaged under a totalarian dictator and has sanctions as a result.

I am actualy quite enthusiatic for a gold standard if only to reduce government deficits which is printing money or borrowing against you childrens earnings. Just so long as all the gold doesnt end up in a few hands. That would require a redistribution, you can do that in a paper system by printing more. With gold you would have to raise top band income tax. Better still would be to introduce an asset tax you pay according to what you own rather than what you earn. That would stop the few hording the gold and raising gold prices for everyone else.

Why do you have this fetish for communists? You sound like one of those "Gotta kill the reds" guys from the 1950's movies. It was an idea, it was never evil, it leads to mismanagement so it fails. Nobody has proposed total government control over production or ownership. They have asked for tax which allows everyone to continue producing as they are. Wealth redistribution is a good thing. Without it all the wealth ends up in the hands of a few powerful families. Everyone else is at subsistence or lower level.

Governments dont exist to promote idealogy. They are elected by the people to promote the interests of the people. Any government that promoted the interest of a few rich guys at the expense of other voters is not going to last long. The rich guys can buy advertisements to try to fool the poor, that its in their interest. The whole US electoral system is a joke, since its bought by rich men for returned favors. But you cant fool all the people all the time.

A govenrment health service will be mismanaged thats true. But the poor guys is still better off with a mismanaged health system than none at all.

The average man is not a genius. He will spend his paycheck on consumables rather than health insurance or pension plans. This is a fact. You therefore make sure it done for them. Its much like a parent doing the planning for the best interests of a child. Nobody wants to unhealthy or poor in old age but they always seem to have more pressing concerns.

[prometheus]

I was going to restate the facts of supply/ demand/ inflation and markets. But you didn't understand it the first time, so I won't bother. I will say all the post was as accurate as this following statement.


Why do you have this fetish for communists? You sound like one of those "Gotta kill the reds" guys from the 1950's movies. It was an idea, it was never evil, it leads to mismanagement so it fails.


The Gulag was the government agency that administered the penal labor camps of the Soviet Union.

It was the branch of the State Security that operated the penal system of forced labour camps and associated detention and transit camps and prisons. While these camps housed criminals of all types, the Gulag system has become primarily known as a place for political prisoners and as a mechanism for repressing political opposition to the Soviet state.

There were at least 476 separate camp complexes, each one comprising hundreds, even thousands of individual camps.[2] It is estimated that there may have been up to 5-7 million prisoners in these camps at any one time. It is possible that approximately 10% of prisoners died each year.

Like Wheatcroft and several Russian researchers, Ellman concludes that the number of "repression deaths" in 1937 and 1938, the peak years of the great terror, was about one million (more precisely, in the range 950,000--1,200,000). Most of these deaths were deliberate NKVD killings ("executions"), deaths in detention accounting for the remainder.

But although this is the best numerical estimate obtainable, it omits an important hidden category -- deaths that occurred after release but were caused by detention in the Gulag. Of the 644,000 people recorded as being released from the Gulag in 1937-38, how many died shortly afterward as a direct result of the way they were treated there? We do not know, but the number must be very substantial because it was common practice to release from camp prisoners who were no longer strong and healthy enough to work. This improved the camp's indicators for both mortality and labor productivity. (4)

The author points out that despite the large number of people repressed the demographic impact of repression was less than that of war, famine, and disease, especially in the periods with the highest rates of excess deaths (1918-23, 1931-34, and 1941-45).

Or should the victims of repression and of famine be lumped together, counting them all as victims of the regime? Ellman discusses this controversial question in an appendix and concludes that the right answer is no. There is insufficient evidence to prove that Stalin deliberately sought the starvation of millions of peasants, although he was unwilling to come to their aid at the expense of goals more important to him, such as exporting grain to pay for the import of machinery.

Saloth Sar (May 19, 1925 – April 15, 1998), aliases Brother Number One, Pol, Pouk, Hay, Grand-Uncle, '87', Phem, '99, and best known as Pol Pot, was the leader of the communist movement known as the Khmer Rouge. He was the Prime Minister of Cambodia (officially renamed Democratic Kampuchea under his rule) from 1976 to 1979, having been de facto leader since mid-1975. During his time in power Pol Pot imposed a version of agrarian collectivization whereby city dwellers were relocated to the countryside to work in collective farms and forced labour projects, conceived as a restarting of civilization in "Year Zero". The combined effect of slave labour, malnutrition, poor medical care and executions had an estimated death toll of 750,000 to 1.7 million. His regime achieved special notoriety for singling out all intellectuals and other "bourgeois enemies" for murder.


Yea, communism and socialism are great, can we please get some more here.

Oh, and you aren't my mommy or daddy!

[Lights]

The world will be so much better when the war lords and corporations take over. :rolleyes:

Totalitarian governments also equal suck. Communism is like libertarianism, in that it is a wonderful idea on paper, but also like libertarianism it leads to much misery when people actually try to put it into practice.

As far as health care is concerned, I still believe a compromise could be made between different ideologies. I even proposed one not long ago. It's far from perfect, but I bet it is better than a purely socialist or private one.


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 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 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.

[prometheus]

...libertarianism it leads to much misery when people actually try to put it into practice.

You couldn't be more wrong. I posted the links and info about "the wild west", and Viking age Iceland. Show me where the mass killings and atrocities took place under those systems like they have under all socialist regimes.

You can't.

MTA: Especially chilling is how intellectuals, and people with different opinions are always murdered, in socialist systems. Can't have people questioning what's going on, you know.

[Lights]

You couldn't be more wrong. I posted the links and info about "the wild west", and Viking age Iceland. Show me where the mass killings and atrocities took place under those systems like they have under all socialist regimes.

You can't.

MTA: Especially chilling is how intellectuals, and people with different opinions are always murdered, in socialist systems. Can't have people questioning what's going on, you know.

I've already explained why your examples are ludicrous, and I don't care to repeat myself in this thread.

[Colette]

The world will be so much better when the war lords and corporations take over. :rolleyes:

Totalitarian governments also equal suck. Communism is like libertarianism, in that it is a wonderful idea on paper, but also like libertarianism it leads to much misery when people actually try to put it into practice.

As far as health care is concerned, I still believe a compromise could be made between different ideologies. I even proposed one not long ago. It's far from perfect, but I bet it is better than a purely socialist or private one.

This sounds like a sensible and highly feasible model. How would people know where the boundaries lie between one layer, or tier, and another? Would these be made explicit, somehow?

You couldn't be more wrong. I posted the links and info about "the wild west", and Viking age Iceland. Show me where the mass killings and atrocities took place under those systems like they have under all socialist regimes

Prometheus, your posting on these topics is becoming increasingly trivial and irritating. Would you please put some more, and better, thought into your posts, before you make them - otherwise you will end up with everyone just ignoring you. I, for one, am becoming increasingly frustrated to the point where I will not continue to respond to these poor quality posts in what should be serious debates..

[Lights]

This sounds like a sensible and highly feasible model. How would people know where the boundaries lie between one layer, or tier, and another? Would these be made explicit, somehow?

I don't think they would really have to be. Individuals can choose whether or not to donate to the federal level which is then distributed to the states. Individuals then pay state taxes for the state ran care and elect officials who represent their belief of how much they should have to pay. And individuals can then choose to buy whatever other insurance isn't covered. It provides the most basic level health care, while making individuals responsible for obtaining more "luxury" coverage. Even people like prometheus would be fine because they could simply move to a state that didn't tax for health care. It's a system largely dictated by individual choice and it tests the tenets of each ideology. For example, if the rich decide they won't donate to health care, then it proves the faultiness of libertarianism and the states can pick up the slack.

Of course, some people simply assume it is "buearocratic waste" when they haven't even read it or considered it. :rolleyes:

The point of developing the idea was simply to show that even a laymen like me could think up some compromises with fail safes and I'm sure really intelligent people who better understand the economy could do a far better job of it.

[prometheus]

Prometheus, your posting on these topics is becoming increasingly trivial and irritating. Would you please put some more, and better, thought into your posts, before you make them - otherwise you will end up with everyone just ignoring you. I, for one, am becoming increasingly frustrated to the point where I will not continue to respond to these poor quality posts in what should be serious debates..


If the historical end result of the political/economic system you support is the horrible death of MILLIONS of people is trivial, you and I have a different value system.

I can understand how posting these "tasteless" facts, and completely destroying your "socialism is a groovy solution for the proletariats" argument could be irritating to you, though.

[Lights]

Its pretty clear that the drug companies are buying the politicians in order to keep them from changing anything. I mean, when a politician gets a big contribution from a pharmaceutical or insurance company, then proposes a law that favors them, and then goes to work for the health care industry, it's pretty evident that things are FUBAR. Our health care system needs a major overhaul, and I don't hear any alternative models to socialized being proposed.

[prometheus]

Its pretty clear that the drug companies are buying the politicians in order to keep them from changing anything. I mean, when a politician gets a big contribution from a pharmaceutical or insurance company, then proposes a law that favors them, and then goes to work for the health care industry, it's pretty evident that things are FUBAR. Our health care system needs a major overhaul, and I don't hear any alternative models to socialized being proposed.


How about getting rid of all the politicians? That would certainly cure the favoritism of the corrupt politicians (that seems redundant).

[Lights]

Kiteena: "I think that the United States should continue to adopt socialist programs. For example, I think that the government should take control of vital industries."
Will: "So, you are for state ownership of industry."
Kiteena: "Certainly. It is a great idea and will help make the world a less violent place."
Will: "Well, you know Stalin also endorsed state ownership on industry. At last count he wiped out millions of his own people. Pol Pot of Cambodia was also for state ownership of industry. He also killed millions of his own people. The leadership of China is for state owned industry. They killed their own people in that square. So, are you still for state ownership of industry?"
Kiteena: "Oh, no! I don't want to be associated with those butchers!"

Of course, I'm not as naive as Kiteena. Just because people in the Soviet Union did something we can all find reprehensible doesn't mean it has anything to do with socialized health care as you tried to pander off in post 134.

How about getting rid of all the politicians? That would certainly cure the favoritism of the corrupt politician (that seems redundant).

How bout getting rid of all the anarchists? There certainly are far fewer of them than politicians and I don't think it would be a great loss to our little "mob".

j/k :laugh:

[prometheus]

OK I give up. I've had enough of this mental sacifricosis. You guys win. Hell, I don't pay taxes any more, and it's time to kick back and reserve my spot at the public tit. So tomorrow I will go get my food stamps, unemployment, housing subsidy, heating subsidy, get my kids signed up for what I've just figured out is truly FREE (at least to me) health care. What other cool freebies can I get. Lights, I know you work in the hand out industry, come on man hook me up. Be a friend. I see the error of my old self responsibility ways, I want to join your team (well, maybe not that team).







.....















......








.......




....





wait for it






......






.......


Oh, yea I can't. I have some self respect. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Lights]

OK I give up. I've had enough of this mental sacifricosis. You guys win. Hell, I don't pay taxes any more, and it's time to kick back and reserve my spot at the public tit. So tomorrow I will go get my food stamps, unemployment, housing subsidy, heating subsidy, get my kids signed up for what I've just figured out is truly FREE (at least to me) health care. What other cool freebies can I get. Lights, I know you work in the hand out industry, come on man hook me up. Be a friend. I see the error of my old self responsibility ways, I want to join your team (well, maybe not that team).

Well thank you for your contributions to the discussion. And if I ever have the privilege of catching you defrauding the system then I'll send you to a place where you won't only get free health care, but three square meals a day. It is indeed an interesting system that needs a great deal of work, and I'm happy I'm in a position to learn about it and work with the legislative process to make it better. I'll sincerely take some of your concerns to heart when I do so.

[prometheus]

Well thank you for your contributions to the discussion. And if I ever have the privilege of catching you defrauding the system then I'll send you to a place where you won't only get free health care, but three square meals a day. It is indeed an interesting system that needs a great deal of work, and I'm happy I'm in a position to learn about it and work with the legislative process to make it better. I'll sincerely take some of your concerns to heart when I do so.

But you see I wouldn't be defrauding the system. What I earned was well below the poverty level last year. :p

MTA: I know of anarchists who have actually done this, it is one step further than my John Galt dropping out. They are actively trying to bankrupt the system after the system (IRS) bankrupted their businesses and personal finances. Talk about the government killing the golden goose, eh?

[xhaan]

I'd rather see the private charity system of days past, when people had more money to help because they weren't having 50-80% of their earnings taken by taxes.

So. It's the method of payment that bothers you? Or the amount?
I'm not going to judge you personally because I don't know you, but I know a lot of people who feel this way because they'd rather give nothing at all... which is kind of why we have taxes for it in the first place I think, the people who DO give, aren't enough.

[prometheus]

So. It's the method of payment that bothers you? Or the amount?
I'm not going to judge you personally because I don't know you, but I know a lot of people who feel this way because they'd rather give nothing at all... which is kind of why we have taxes for it in the first place I think, the people who DO give, aren't enough.


I hate being forced to do anything at gunpoint. I have voluntarily given free medical treatment to members of my community as an EMT. Do you see the difference?

[xhaan]

I hate being forced to do anything at gunpoint. I have voluntarily given free medical treatment to members of my community as an EMT. Do you see the difference?

Yes, I do understand, I just wanted to make sure that is what you are saying. I would rather give freely too than be forced. Some people I have known are just plain greedy, they don't want to be taxed because they don't want to give up money regardless.

Edit:
Or services, or time. It doesn't have to be money, money is just the easiest one to get and give.

Another edit:
I also respect that you were an EMT, that is a real service to people.





xhaan added to this post, 12 minutes and 41 seconds later...



OK picture this same young person, but with a sense of self responsibility. He graduates High School, let's assume he is still living at home at this point, (because that is statistically correct) has very little in the way of bills, he might even have some savings from working summers, and not going to all the keggers. Now he could go directly to university, go travel through Europe depleting his savings, or he could go to work for one year (probably as the lowest peon) in whatever field he is thinking about studying, and adding to his savings.


You see, there is still an option for people to be responsible for themselves, but few if any choose it. It seems like you didn't even think of this as an option.

So at some point he has these medical problems, it will cost him his savings, and he might have some bills to pay off. But he won't die, and he will still be an independent, responsible, individual that doesn't expect everything in life to be handed to him.

Or...........he could have taken the most common path today, and sucked off his parents all through High School, going to keggers, screwing anything with two legs, and then expected the world to hand him a college education, health care, and some high paying executive job.

Heh. I think we are painting the same picture!
You apparently don't acknowledge how difficult it is to even BE responsible, and save money for school and SCHOOL ONLY, and study hard all the time, even when you don't 'have bills'. Or maybe where you live, it is just easier or something. It's hard to have a well paying job AND study hard too, at the same time, especially where I am, where finding a job above minimum wage just plain SUCKS (or you have to work a lot of hours... which cuts into study and grades)

I almost feel like you just straw-manned me.

It's also hard, if not impossible, to get into a university type field... before going to university. That doesn't follow. Most places want EXPERIENCE first, unless you are some kind of intern.. which guess what, requires SCHOOL. Unless daddy has a company for you to work at, or you're doing something in skilled trades and can start as a laborer.

[prometheus]

Yes, I do understand, I just wanted to make sure that is what you are saying. I would rather give freely too than be forced. Some people I have known are just plain greedy, they don't want to be taxed because they don't want to give up money regardless.

It's not that I'd rather, it's that I REFUSE to allow any theft upon myself. PERIOD. Yes, I have a serious problem with "authorit-ah" I am my own master.

Hey, I have nothing against greedy people, that is their choice. You see, in a real free market society (where your investments aren't incrementally stolen by the state) no one would just take their profits and stuff them in a mattress, that money could be put to work for the "industrialist" you know what that means? More jobs. More jobs equal higher pay; supply/demand. All that really needs to happen to unleash the economic powerhouse that this country use to be is for the government to shrivel up and die. Look at Hong Kong, and Thailand. The less government intrusion the better the economy. Dang, kind of got sidetracked there, my personal Hank Reardon popped up, and displace Mr Galt.

Edit:
Or services, or time. It doesn't have to be money, money is just the easiest one to get and give.

Services, time, and money are really one and the same.

Another edit:
I also respect that you were an EMT, that is a real service to people.

Thanks, and even if I can't, or choose not, to give back to the community it is a handy skill to have (for my family) living in the middle of no where.



Heh. I think we are painting the same picture!
You apparently don't acknowledge how difficult it is to even BE responsible, and save money for school and SCHOOL ONLY, and study hard all the time, even when you don't 'have bills'. Or maybe where you live, it is just easier or something. It's hard to have a well paying job AND study hard too, at the same time, especially where I am, where finding a job above minimum wage just plain SUCKS (or you have to work a lot of hours... which cuts into study and grades)

Life aint easy Bubba, anyone telling you different is selling something.

I almost feel like you just straw-manned me.


Humm, maybe you should really look into that then.


It's also hard, if not impossible, to get into a university type field... before going to university. That doesn't follow. Most places want EXPERIENCE first, unless you are some kind of intern.. which guess what, requires SCHOOL. Unless daddy has a company for you to work at, or you're doing something in skilled trades and can start as a laborer.

That is why I said as the lowest peon. Emptying trashcans, answering phones, make coffee and what not, and you never know what future contacts you might make.

[xhaan]

That is why I said as the lowest peon. Emptying trashcans, answering phones, make coffee and what not, and you never know what future contacts you might make.

You are right, there is 'a way' or ways, I suppose. However, I'm saying that things don't always go so perfectly, and people can make mistakes, without knowing they are mistakes... should they pay for them for the rest of their life?

You seem more and more to be about 'ME ME ME and screw everyone else unless they agree with ME'. Not democracy. If the majority of people agree to have taxes, well, you're stuck, unless you believe in abiding laws selectively... which makes law pointless.

And anarchy doesn't work, in general. I don't think it EVER has, without still involving some things about who has a bigger gun. In some closed systems you MIGHT get away with it, but with large populations? No.

Also, it could be worse. I was reading about this one culture before.. can't remember the name of it.. but if you were deemed to be too lazy, they might break your legs or lop your feet off, so you'd have a reason to lay around. If you were rebellious, they'd just take both your arms off, so you couldn't threaten people. And if someone accused you of stealing, and could prove it, you could lose a hand, but if it is found that you were falsely accused, the accuser suffered that fate instead.

[prometheus]

You are right, there is 'a way' or ways, I suppose. However, I'm saying that things don't always go so perfectly, and people can make mistakes, without knowing they are mistakes... should they pay for them for the rest of their life? No one promised you a rose garden (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) There are chances in life and consequences, and just plain bad luck, I was born with a slight heart defect (seriously) should I demand you to give yours up for me?


You seem more and more to be about 'ME ME ME and screw everyone else unless they agree with ME'. Not democracy. If the majority of people agree to have taxes, well, you're stuck, unless you believe in abiding laws selectively... which makes law pointless.


We (or at least I) don't live in a democracy, I live in a Constitutionally limited republic. There are certain natural rights that are enumerated in that constitution that are ABSOLUTE. Period. End of story. There are also certain allowably government powers outlined in that document. Me laying down my life for you, aint one of them, Bubba. It is all about me. I'm an individual, not a cog in the machine. Anyone spouting off the line "For the greater good" is only trying to cheat you.


And anarchy doesn't work, in general. I don't think it EVER has, without still involving some things about who has a bigger gun. In some closed systems you MIGHT get away with it, but with large populations? No.


I'm not worrying about the size of the gun (though I got a goodun. ;) ) It's all a matter of principles. Theft, murder, and fraud are wrong, it doesn't matter the instigaters motivation, or cause.

[xhaan]

No one promised you a rose garden (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) There are chances in life and consequences, and just plain bad luck, I was born with a slight heart defect (seriously) should I demand you to give yours up for me?


No, but the thing is, if I were going to die and had a healthy one, I'd want it to be given to you anyway.


We (or at least I) don't live in a democracy, I live in a Constitutionally limited republic. There are certain natural rights that are enumerated in that constitution that are ABSOLUTE. Period. End of story. There are also certain allowably government powers outlined in that document. Me laying down my life for you, aint one of them, Bubba. It is all about me. I'm an individual, not a cog in the machine. Anyone spouting off the line "For the greater good" is only trying to cheat you.

You are right, but it's meant to emulate one in ways, it's representative republic. And I never said anything about laying down life.



I'm not worrying about the size of the gun (though I got a goodun. ;) ) It's all a matter of principles. Theft, murder, fraud are wrong, it doesn't matter the instigaters motivation, or cause.
And therein lies the problem. You can't make everyone agree with YOU. And theft, murder, fraud being wrong.. IS for the common good. We aren't individuals in a vacuum. Sure, I'd be violating your rights if I kill you, but if nobody else has a right to say anything about it (it was between you and me after all) then what difference does it make? I won. I now get your stuff. These things are 'wrong' because they are deemed wrong for EVERYBODY, not just each individual person, which means consensus, and enforcement of some kind by either peers or government.

[prometheus]

No, but the thing is, if I were going to die and had a healthy one, I'd want it to be given to you anyway.
As a personal voluntary decision, eh?



You are right, but it's meant to emulate one in ways, it's representative republic. And I never said anything about laying down life.

Your earning represent your life at X$/Hr. Just as X$ extra represents free time away from work. Can you see the correlation? Money really is time, and what is life but, the limited time you have.


And therein lies the problem. You can't make everyone agree with YOU. And theft, murder, fraud being wrong.. IS for the common good. We aren't individuals in a vacuum. Sure, I'd be violating your rights if I kill you, but if nobody else has a right to say anything about it (it was between you and me after all) then what difference does it make? I won. I now get your stuff. These things are 'wrong' because they are deemed wrong for EVERYBODY, not just each individual person, which means consensus, and enforcement of some kind by either peers or government.

OK, I really don't understand what you are saying here. Do you understand the difference between Anarcho-capitalism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the stereotypical definition of anarchy being chaos, bearded men with bowling ball shaped bombs, and grungy kids yelling at the face of the Coca Cola building?

[xhaan]

Your earning represent your life at X$/Hr. Just as X$ extra represents free time away from work. Can you see the correlation? Money really is time, and what is life but, the limited time you have.

Yup, and if you can't share it, then what's the point? (IMO)
May as well not even be, if you aren't part of something greater. You're but a fleeting moment as a total individual, a tiny mote in never-stopping time.


OK, I really don't understand what you are saying here. Do you understand the difference between Anarcho-capitalism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and the stereotypical definition of anarchy being chaos, bearded men with bowling ball shaped bombs, and grungy kids yelling at the face of the Coca Cola building?

What I'm saying (and yes, I do know the difference), that just like Ayn Rand's stuff, it depends on people generally 'doing the right thing'. I'd like to think we all could be trusted with that, but I know it isn't the case. Things would fall apart without something compulsory, whether it's from peers (which would just be politicians under a different guise) or proclaimed government. What if one of your 'voluntarily funded competitors', which is supposed to be protecting you, rises up and says they aren't 'voluntarily funded' enough, and decides to make war on you, with their training and guns which YOU paid for?

[prometheus]

What I'm saying (and yes, I do know the difference), that just like Ayn Rand's stuff, it depends on people generally 'doing the right thing'. I'd like to think we all could be trusted with that, but I know it isn't the case. Things would fall apart without something compulsory, whether it's from peers (which would just be politicians under a different guise) or proclaimed government. What if one of your 'voluntarily funded competitors', which is supposed to be protecting you, rises up and says they aren't 'voluntarily funded' enough, and decides to make war on you, with their training and guns which YOU paid for?


Up here we wouldn't be employing private security. The real definition of the militia still applies here, and would only grow stronger if this situation came about.


As for you, all I can say is stop depending on others for your safety, this is a function that is rightly your responsibility. Buy guns, ammo, and training.

[xhaan]

Up here we wouldn't be employing private security. The real definition of the militia still applies here, and would only grow stronger if this situation came about.


As for you, all I can say is stop depending on others for your safety, this is a function that is rightly your responsibility. Buy guns, ammo, and training.

Definitely. I don't depend on others for 'safety' (even though I can't own a gun, I don't think) but backup is nice, because numbers count for something. A lot of something.

And if you don't join together for good, people WILL be joining together for bad. Working for the team helps, a lot, and 'bad people' have no qualms about using it.

[prometheus]

Definitely. I don't depend on others for 'safety' (even though I can't own a gun, I don't think) but backup is nice, because numbers count for something. A lot of something.

And if you don't join together for good, people WILL be joining together for bad. Working for the team helps, a lot, and 'bad people' have no qualms about using it.

This seems like a good note to finish the night on. Not to mention drinking whiskey till dawn has historically led to some really fucked up (not wrong, but very un-PC) statements on my part.

Where are you at? Asia?

[xhaan]

This seems like a good note to finish the night on. Not to mention drinking whiskey till dawn has historically led to some really fucked up (not wrong, but very un-PC) statements on my part.

Where are you at? Asia?

USA. :laugh: :thumbsup:
I can't own a gun legally (I think) because I've been diagnosed with mental disorders. Not that I would go around killing people (I'm totally fine with firearms and such), it's just the law. Though I did used to have an SKS, which was legal, but I sold it because I was a bit desperate for money.

[Colette]

USA. :laugh: :thumbsup:
I can't own a gun legally (I think) because I've been diagnosed with mental disorders

You're brave to admit this on public forums!

I've been labelled 'nuts' enough times now on internet forums to know for a fact at this point that I am certifiably sane :)

[xhaan]

You're brave to admit this on public forums!

I've been labelled 'nuts' enough times now on internet forums to know for a fact at this point that I am certifiably sane :)

Oh, I'm quite sane, probably more sane than most 'normal' people. Just have some.. bad wiring. Mostly social anxiety and PTSD style triggers (not violent shellshock ones, just really depressing ones).

And yeah, I'm brave, I don't usually mention it because of possible stigmas, but I figure on an INTJ forum, people are mature enough to handle knowing it.

[Colette]

And yeah, I'm brave, I don't usually mention it because of possible stigmas, but I figure on an INTJ forum, people are mature enough to handle knowing it.

One would hope so, although in my cynicism I would probably consider it a risky assumption to make ;)

Anyway there should not be any stigma attached even to more serious mental disorders than those you describe, in this day and age. People should begin to regard mental illness in the same way they do physical illness, and accord the subject a commensurate degree of empathy and respect :)

[Lucid]

I don't know if anything I have to say in response to this is still relevant (had something of a drinking binge yesterday in honor of school starting Tuesday), but for what it's worth:

If you do understand I'm completely against taxes, and fighting them on every front, you would understand how ludicrous you suggestion of just a little bit more taxes is to me.

I do understand it. But the reality of the situation, at the moment (and it isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future) is that we do pay taxes. So how do you want your tax dollars spent? Wars and corporate bailouts? Or health care for the people?


I really don't care if you take your dog and cat to the church and get them married. The government has no business in what is a personal matter, or maybe a church matter.

I'm not trying to attribute to you any particular stance on the issue of gay marriage. What I'm trying to say is that in some cases the slippery slope argument will break down into ridiculousness. Obviously letting two people of the same sex get married provides no basis to say that people can marry animals. For one thing, animals don't have the mental capacity to understand the legally binding contract of marriage and, therefore, cannot consent. To say that people have a right to be provided with the things that will keep them alive (housing, heating, health care) doesn't mean that they have a right to the things that might make life slightly more enjoyable (video cards, strippers, and bullets).


You see the socialist whole or nothing argument here why not with the ammo, video cards, and strippers?

Originally I had thought (and somewhere in this thread I think I posted) that it could be left up to the individual states. I'm really not a fan of the federal government and, in general, would prefer to see things run more by the state and local governments because I think they deal with things on a smaller scale, which makes things easier to manage and control. However, if it's left up to the individual states then we have the poorer states having crappy medical care and people crossing state lines for better health care systems that they haven't paid into. And that's what we have now with the US and Canada.


I really don't think it's going to matter. This country is BROKE (as in there is no more money broke) Did you see what the head bean counter at the GAO said last week? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Did you know stocks are down 8% YTD

Have see this: The Philadelphia Fed index, a regional manufacturing read, tumbled to a reading of -20.9, versus forecasts for a small drop to -1.5. Any number below zero indicates contraction in the sector.

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

I could post another dozen indicators, if these don't convince you. We aren't going to be able to afford the medical handouts we currently have like medicade, etc., let alone add more. So it really is a moot point.

I know we're broke. That's why I'm so in favor of a socialized health care system. We're not just broke as a nation, but increasingly broke as individuals as well. I'd rather pay $100 a year in taxes for health care than $100 to $200 a month in insurance bills (not to mention what we pay when we don't have insurance or if the insurance denies our claims).
The fact that so many people are living pay check to pay check, living below the poverty line, companies are downsizing, outsourcing, etc. means that our government (which is supposed to be for and by the people) needs to stop spending so much on wars, on defense, on tapping our phones and reading our emails, on those fucking corporate bail-outs I keep bringing up and spend money to help the citizens of this nation maintain a decent standard of living. Without this, I think that our standard of living will be closer to that of 3rd world country than a developed Western nation. In order to pull ourselves out of this clusterfuck we're in it means we must all make some sacrifices and we must work together. That's what it means to be a citizen of a nation, rather than an individual anarchist. You pay into the system and (in theory) you benefit from it. As it stands now, it seems that we pay into the system and the rich benefit from it.


The poor don't get fucked on taxes.( the top 1% of the wealthy in the US pay 30% the total tax collected) They do get fucked on education however.

I just noticed this response... the quote didn't include my name, so I missed it the first few times, my bad.

No they don't. They're supposed to, but because of the tax loopholes and off shore accounts and business headquarters the rich end up paying less of a percentage of their earnings in taxes than the middle class do.

[Lights]

This whole thing seems like a repetitive battle of silly absolutes. Ultimately there are benefits and drawbacks to any system, and the question isn't whether or not socialized health care would be ideal, but whether or not America would benefit from adopting it or aspects of it? So far I haven't heard any arguments that say America wouldn't benefit, only people saying that their personal ideology would be violated. So I'm just curious, does anyone actually have any new or relevant point to make about how America would or would not benefit from socialized health care?

[xhaan]

This whole thing seems like a repetitive battle of silly absolutes. Ultimately there are benefits and drawbacks to any system, and the question isn't whether or not socialized health care would be ideal, but whether or not America would benefit from adopting it or aspects of it? So far I haven't heard any arguments that say America wouldn't benefit, only people saying that their personal ideology would be violated. So I'm just curious, does anyone actually have any new or relevant point to make about how America would or would not benefit from socialized health care?

Benefit depends on the implementation. Possibly yes, possibly no. You can make anything work 'on paper', and you can make anything NOT, work on paper.

[Lights]

Benefit depends on the implementation. Possibly yes, possibly no. You can make anything work 'on paper', and you can make anything NOT, work on paper.

Good point. So then we could really only assess other countries systems of socialized health care and compare them to our own. So we have come full circle.

Canada's system seems fairly effective. The biggest issue with it is the ability to provide treatments in a timely fashion, but our private system clearly leads to socioeconomic inequalities. Is there some way we could combine the two systems that would minimize those faults?

[evoviiigsr]

The current U.S. health care system is already socialized to an extent, and there are so many inefficiencies that privatization would alleviate. Hospital regulation (through certificate-of-need laws and price setting), antitrust laws, Medicare and Medicaid, obscure/overgeneralized health contracts creating moral hazard, the FDA making pharmaceuticals more expensive, etc etc etc..

[thod]

It doesnt even have to be comprehensive care.

So you can have a basic setting broken bones and stiching wounds service without covering expensive stuff like cancer treatments. It would be a tragedy to leave a child bleeding because the parent cant afford the care. Or for the parent to try to do it herself with a rusty needle. Its all about what you want to pay for.

[xhaan]

It doesnt even have to be comprehensive care.

So you can have a basic setting broken bones and stiching wounds service without covering expensive stuff like cancer treatments. It would be a tragedy to leave a child bleeding because the parent cant afford the care. Or for the parent to try to do it herself with a rusty needle. Its all about what you want to pay for.

Yes, and we already have clinics that do that, but perhaps we need more or better ones, I don't know.

I at least have never been turned away at an ER, even when I had no insurance or money. They just sent me a bill.

[Lights]

The current U.S. health care system is already socialized to an extent, and there are so many inefficiencies that privatization would alleviate. Hospital regulation (through certificate-of-need laws and price setting), antitrust laws, Medicare and Medicaid, obscure/overgeneralized health contracts creating moral hazard, the FDA making pharmaceuticals more expensive, etc etc etc..

Ah, but the biggest problem of privatizations is still the socioeconomic inequality. Truly, the socialized aspect of any system will lead to inefficiencies, but there are many such inefficiencies in our privatized system as it is. For example, hospitals kicking patients to the curb and refusing much needed treatments and private insurance companies delaying treatments.

It doesnt even have to be comprehensive care.

So you can have a basic setting broken bones and stiching wounds service without covering expensive stuff like cancer treatments. It would be a tragedy to leave a child bleeding because the parent cant afford the care. Or for the parent to try to do it herself with a rusty needle. Its all about what you want to pay for.

Which is exactly what Canada does. It covers primary health care, and private insurance companies provide supplementary insurance for everything else.

Yes, and we already have clinics that do that, but perhaps we need more or better ones, I don't know.

I at least have never been turned away at an ER, even when I had no insurance or money. They just sent me a bill.

It does happen though, and at increasing frequency. People are being denied emergency treatment. Many of the free clinics that are out there are terribly overburdened and many more are closing down because the doctors simply can't afford to keep practicing. But the fact of the matter is, people can't afford it when something bad happens and they don't the insurance to cover it. The reason they usually didn't have the insurance to cover it was because they couldn't afford it. Perhaps it is a bit naive of me, but somehow I don't think it benefits us as a country to bankrupt the poor.

[xhaan]

It does happen though, and at increasing frequency. People are being denied emergency treatment. Many of the free clinics that are out there are terribly overburdened and many more are closing down because the doctors simply can't afford to keep practicing. But the fact of the matter is, people can't afford it when something bad happens and they don't the insurance to cover it. The reason they usually didn't have the insurance to cover it was because they couldn't afford it. Perhaps it is a bit naive of me, but somehow I don't think it benefits us as a country to bankrupt the poor.

It benefits, but not the poor. Just like credit companies charge you MORE for being late, or non payment. What sense does that make? That isn't the money you owe, they added it on, and how can they get more money from you if you have none already?

Edit:
This reminds me of one bank account I had, where I had overdrawn by like $30, which was no problem to pay but I was in emergency situation kind of, and didn't appreciate that they wouldn't even cash my work checks unless I paid that $30 back, and they kept charging me for sending statements, and 'overdraft fees', and I'm like "I know I'm broke, I'm not going to pay you in order to tell me that." So I paid them off and closed the account, and just cashed my checks elsewhere.

[errrzarrr]

I see a lot of skepticism about socialized health care here. Maybe I am wrong, but the educational system on U.S. is socialized, isn't it ?

[xhaan]

I see a lot of skepticism about socialized health care here. Maybe I am wrong, but the educational system on U.S. is socialized, isn't it ?

Kinda sorta, yes, in that it's 'state funded'... but not in the sense that we have much say in how it is run (which is how we end up with school board problems, and teacher strikes).

[errrzarrr]

@xhaan: ok, is like mixed.

This is a global forum, here are participants of many parts of the world. It is a good idea that habitants of countries with socialized health care systems give us their testimony, so we can have better idea of it.

[evoviiigsr]

Ah, but the biggest problem of privatizations is still the socioeconomic inequality. Truly, the socialized aspect of any system will lead to inefficiencies, but there are many such inefficiencies in our privatized system as it is. For example, hospitals kicking patients to the curb and refusing much needed treatments and private insurance companies delaying treatments.


You seem to think that the current U.S. health care system is privatized. The list that I provided in my previous post is proof that our system is heavily regulated aka the OPPOSITE of privatized. This regulation is widespread, even having adverse effects on private insurance companies, which you mentioned and I will talk about.

For example, insurance plans provided by these companies are "one size fits all" and inflexible because the companies are prohibited by law from discriminating based on sex, age, HEALTH STATUS, etc etc. Hence, every patient that is eligible for insurance is put into one universal group, with one universal rate. If these private companies were not regulated like this, then they could offer lower rates for healthier people and higher rates for sicker people, instead of having higher than necessary rates for the healthy and lower than fair rates for the sick. This way, insurance companies (who could afford to promptly pay for treatments) and healthy people (who would have more disposable income) would be better off, while sick people (the smallest group) would stop free-riding on taxpayer money. This inflexibility is the very essence of why health insurance is unaffordable for so many people. Plans need to be contracted on an individual basis, allowing an equilibrium price to be reached that takes risks and benefits into account.

By the way, economics relating to this sort of area is my academic forte.

[errrzarrr]

You seem to think that the current U.S. health care system is privatized. The list that I provided in my previous post is proof that our system is heavily regulated aka the OPPOSITE of privatized. This regulation is widespread, even having adverse effects on private insurance companies, which you mentioned and I will talk about.

For example, insurance plans provided by these companies are "one size fits all" and inflexible because the companies are prohibited by law from discriminating based on sex, age, HEALTH STATUS, etc etc. Hence, every patient that is eligible for insurance is put into one universal group, with one universal rate. If these private companies were not regulated like this, then they could offer lower rates for healthier people and higher rates for sicker people, instead of having higher than necessary rates for the healthy and lower than fair rates for the sick. This way, insurance companies (who could afford to promptly pay for treatments) and healthy people (who would have more disposable income) would be better off, while sick people (the smallest group) would stop free-riding on taxpayer money. This inflexibility is the very essence of why health insurance is unaffordable for so many people. Plans need to be contracted on an individual basis, allowing an equilibrium price to be reached that takes risks and benefits into account.

By the way, economics relating to this sort of area is my academic forte.
One think is prejudices other think is public or private. One think is private, other is doing all the stuff careless and chaotic.

[Lights]

You seem to think that the current U.S. health care system is privatized. The list that I provided in my previous post is proof that our system is heavily regulated aka the OPPOSITE of privatized. This regulation is widespread, even having adverse effects on private insurance companies, which you mentioned and I will talk about.

For example, insurance plans provided by these companies are "one size fits all" and inflexible because the companies are prohibited by law from discriminating based on sex, age, HEALTH STATUS, etc etc. Hence, every patient that is eligible for insurance is put into one universal group, with one universal rate. If these private companies were not regulated like this, then they could offer lower rates for healthier people and higher rates for sicker people, instead of having higher than necessary rates for the healthy and lower than fair rates for the sick. This way, insurance companies (who could afford to promptly pay for treatments) and healthy people (who would have more disposable income) would be better off, while sick people (the smallest group) would stop free-riding on taxpayer money. This inflexibility is the very essence of why health insurance is unaffordable for so many people. Plans need to be contracted on an individual basis, allowing an equilibrium price to be reached that takes risks and benefits into account.

By the way, economics relating to this sort of area is my academic forte.

Well...that just seems kind of ludicrous to me. It doesn't take an expert to understand that insurance companies are businesses and are therefore only interested in profit. Therefore, they need to make more money off the healthy people than they pay out to the sick people.

And I don't know where you are getting you information, but insurance companies are allowed to deny you service for pre-existing health conditions. So it seems kind of like a BS response to say, "Because they can't discriminate against health status and charge more" the system is all screwed up. The government is forced to pay for many of those who are denied service, simply because a business is trying to make a profit, and can't do so off of sick people. It's a weakness in capitalism, not in the regulation. The assumption you are making is that the insurance companies would not deny people with poor health status their coverage and would just charge them more, but that isn't true, and its why those regulations are in place.

And yes, some of this is a regulated system. But it is privatized.

[evoviiigsr]

And I don't know where you are getting you information, but insurance companies are allowed to deny you service for pre-existing health conditions.

Yes they are allowed to deny you service because of this, but this wouldn't be the case if it were a privatized system! They would have a tremendous amount of leeway as far as risk is concerned. As far as the terminally ill are concerned, well, sucks for them but neither the public nor insurance companies should be punished for this. There is a simple solution for these sort of people that could never obtain insurance (which would be a much smaller percentage of the population if the aforementioned laws were removed). What about direct subsidies from the government covering their costs? It would hardly put a dent in the taxpayer budget, and as a bonus, it wouldn't fuck up the entire health care system!

My info comes from bills passed in Congress, do some research. I've read 1000+ pages of literature on the U.S. health care system, maybe you should as well before actually trying to argue against well established theories in economics. I'm just briefly summarizing excerpts from popular economic literature that I've read, so everything I've said is backed empirically as well. I can point you to some books and sources if you want.

And yes, some of this is a regulated system. But it is privatized.

LOL. Okay. Hate to say it but you have no idea what you're talking about. I do appreciate your passion though. Privatization means being 100% free of any regulation.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I just do not even have the patience, no offense.

[Lights]

Yes they are allowed to deny you service because of this, but this wouldn't be the case if it were a privatized system! They would have a tremendous amount of leeway as far as risk is concerned.

Hm...yes, let's put more faith into the companies that have proven they will screw over anyone and their grandmother for a dollar. :rolleyes:

As far as the terminally ill are concerned, well, sucks for them but neither the public nor insurance companies should be punished for this.

It sucks for the terminally ill and anyone who is chronically ill, who has ever had cancer, who is forced to live or work in a high risk area, who has been exposed to high risk populations, and on and on.

There is a simple solution for these sort of people that could never obtain insurance (which would be a much smaller percentage of the population if the aforementioned laws were removed). What about direct subsidies from the government covering their costs? It would hardly put a dent in the taxpayer budget, and as a bonus, it wouldn't fuck up the entire health care system!

Why not! Let's make the people who are the sickest go through the most inefficient and time consuming process of applying for aid! :laugh:

My info comes from bills passed in Congress, do some research. I've read 1000+ pages of literature on the U.S. health care system, maybe you should as well before actually trying to argue against well established theories in economics. I'm just briefly summarizing excerpts from popular economic literature that I've read, so everything I've said is backed empirically as well. I can point you to some books and sources if you want.

1,000 plus pages in literature eh? My information comes from social workers who get to see the system firsthand. I guess you book learning trumps people who are actually out there dealing with it. But please, do provide some of your resources. :thumbsup:

LOL. Okay. Hate to say it but you have no idea what you're talking about. I do appreciate your passion though. Privatization means being 100% free of any regulation.

By your definition, I concede it isn't privatized.

[xhaan]

Well...that just seems kind of ludicrous to me. It doesn't take an expert to understand that insurance companies are businesses and are therefore only interested in profit. Therefore, they need to make more money off the healthy people than they pay out to the sick people.

And I don't know where you are getting you information, but insurance companies are allowed to deny you service for pre-existing health conditions. So it seems kind of like a BS response to say, "Because they can't discriminate against health status and charge more" the system is all screwed up. The government is forced to pay for many of those who are denied service, simply because a business is trying to make a profit, and can't do so off of sick people. It's a weakness in capitalism, not in the regulation. The assumption you are making is that the insurance companies would not deny people with poor health status their coverage and would just charge them more, but that isn't true, and its why those regulations are in place.

And yes, some of this is a regulated system. But it is privatized.

Yes, most hospitals are for profit also, at least of the ones I know of. Though I think Blue Cross (the insurance association itself, not its individual companies) has both profit and non-profit franchises.





xhaan added to this post, 3 minutes and 17 seconds later...

Privatization means being 100% free of any regulation.


Sorry, but that isn't the case. That would make privatizing illegal in most developed countries, because the company could do anything it damn well pleases.

Edit:
There's also a difference between profit and net gain... somebody takes profit home for their yacht, or flying around in private jets... net gains aren't that specific, they can be assets which go back into the company.

[evoviiigsr]

I do see where you are coming from. It just comes down on what you value more, social equality at society's TREMENDOUS (and I mean tremendous) expense, or efficiency in the healthcare system (both financially and quality wise) at the expense of a small percentage of society. I guess as a thinker I value the latter and as a feeler you value the former. The thing is, there are various cures for the latter scenario to make it as socially equitable as possible, but there is no cure for the former scenario to improve the quality/availability/cost of healthcare. This may sound vague, but I suggest you start off reading "American Health Care: Government, Market Processes, and the Public Interest" edited by Roger D. Feldman. It is about 400 pages long and contains 13 articles about the various things that are wrong with our current system and how it is utterly impossible for even more government intervention to be beneficial.

One last thing, your argument rests solely on the basis of social equality. But what about physicians, who would be earning chump change under a socialized system, after devoting so much time/effort/money to becoming doctors. With a socialized system, is it more fair for all physicians to be punished or for the unfortunate (many of which are drug addicts and criminals) to be given access to what would be sub-par health care.

I will close with this: it cannot be argued that under a fully privatized system, where everyone agrees to a personal contract with private insurance companies, the quality of care would increase, health spending would decrease dramatically (both privately and publicly), COSTS would plummet, and MANY currently uninsured people would be able to afford health insurance. I know your response to the last issue would be "but insurance companies are all about making money, so why would they decrease their rates despite their huge reduction in costs?". Answer: competitive markets; health insurance is a buyer's, NOT a seller's market; this also applies to the reduction in hospital rates. So, after full privatization (which is the polar opposite of what you propose, socialization), there would still be a small percentage of the population who can not afford health care. The percentage is probably smaller than you would imagine; after all, with the huge reduction in health care costs with a new system, health care will be much more affordable; for the small % of obviously-destitute population, the subsidy program I mentioned earlier would be perfect; it would not be inefficient like you said because of the small amount of people that would be applying.





evoviiigsr added to this post, 2 minutes and 12 seconds later...


Sorry, but that isn't the case. That would make privatizing illegal in most developed countries, because the company could do anything it damn well pleases.

Sorry, but it is the case. Unregulated does not mean immune to laws. Companies could still be sued, prosecuted, etc, for any unlawful activity. If by doing "anything it damn well pleases", you mean charging higher prices, then sure they can try, but not if they want to stay in business for long :)

[xhaan]

Sorry, but it is the case. Unregulated does not mean immune to laws.

Um, yes it does, the way you said it. But even so, being sued, or put out of business because nobody is willing to pay what they charge, is also regulation. Maybe you need to look up '100%' and 'free' and 'regulation'.

[evoviiigsr]

Um, yes it does, the way you said it. But even so, being sued, or put out of business because nobody is willing to pay what they charge, is also regulation. Maybe you need to look up '100%' and 'free' and 'regulation'.

Maybe I just assumed you were INTJelligent enough to know that I was not promoting anarchy by using the words "free of any regulation". Economic regulation, which has been the topic at hand for a while now, is what I meant.

[xhaan]

Maybe I just assumed you were INTJelligent enough to know that I was not promoting anarchy by using the words "free of any regulation". Economic regulation, which has been the topic at hand for a while now, is what I meant.

And it is what I am talking about too.
If you decide to make something that costs you $10, and try to sell it for $100, but everyone says 'screw that' and refuses to buy it, guess what. You have just been regulated.

Wage and labor laws, regulation.
Staying economically viable, regulation.
Subject to competition, or peer review, regulation.

100% free of regulation, = not having any of the above.

[Lights]

I do see where you are coming from. It just comes down on what you value more, social equality at society's TREMENDOUS (and I mean tremendous) expense, or efficiency in the healthcare system (both financially and quality wise) at the expense of a small percentage of society.

Yeah, I can see how Canada is suffering. I mean, with there $9.2 trillion debt, $600 billion war, and the falling value of their currency. Oh wait! That is us! Interesting, and the value of our currency has fallen to the same as theirs. Plus, most Canadians actually support their evil little socialized health care system. What crazy buggers!

I guess as a thinker I value the latter and as a feeler you value the former.

Yes, empathy is quite a privilege. I'm sorry you have been denied it.

The thing is, there are various cures for the latter scenario to make it as socially equitable as possible, but there is no cure for the former scenario to improve the quality/availability/cost of healthcare. This may sound vague, but I suggest you start off reading "American Health Care: Government, Market Processes, and the Public Interest" edited by Roger D. Feldman. It is about 400 pages long and contains 13 articles about the various things that are wrong with our current system and how it is utterly impossible for even more government intervention to be beneficial.

Will do.

One last thing, your argument rests solely on the basis of social equality. But what about physicians, who would be earning chump change under a socialized system, after devoting so much time/effort/money to becoming doctors. With a socialized system, is it more fair for all physicians to be punished or for the unfortunate (many of which are drug addicts and criminals) to be given access to what would be sub-par health care.

If that were the case, then I think we would be seeing a rush of Canadian doctors heading this way. However, its the opposite. In my community in Wyoming, we lost three doctors over the course of 4 years to Canada. Why do suppose that is if physicians have such a tough break there? Since I'll go through the trouble of reading your book, why don't you go watch "Sicko" by Michael Moore. In fact, start a thread to review it as I would absolutely love to hear your opinions since you have done so much research on the topic.

I will close with this: it cannot be argued that under a fully privatized system, where everyone agrees to a personal contract with private insurance companies, the quality of care would increase, health spending would decrease dramatically (both privately and publicly), COSTS would plummet, and MANY currently uninsured people would be able to afford health insurance. I know your response to the last issue would be "but insurance companies are all about making money, so why would they decrease their rates despite their huge reduction in costs?". Answer: competitive markets; health insurance is a buyer's, NOT a seller's market; this also applies to the reduction in hospital rates. So, after full privatization (which is the polar opposite of what you propose, socialization), there would still be a small percentage of the population who can not afford health care. The percentage is probably smaller than you would imagine; after all, with the huge reduction in health care costs with a new system, health care will be much more affordable; for the small % of obviously-destitute population, the subsidy program I mentioned earlier would be perfect; it would not be inefficient like you said because of the small amount of people that would be applying.

A brilliant analogy except it overlooks that reality that in a fully privatized system, the companies would eventually come together, either through merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, etc. until one or a few had a monopoly on the entire system and could effectively charge whatever they wanted and do whatever they wanted.

Also your assumption of the subsidies isn't perfect as you are assuming it would only be for a very small percentage of the population. I pointed out earlier why this wouldn't be the case.

[evoviiigsr]

And it is what I am talking about too.
If you decide to make something that costs you $10, and try to sell it for $100, but everyone says 'screw that' and refuses to buy it, guess what. You have just been regulated.

Wage and labor laws, regulation.
Staying economically viable, regulation.
Subject to competition, or peer review, regulation.

100% free of regulation, = not having any of the above.

What? Do you honestly believe that? Sounds like you just have a very broad definition of regulation. You are NOT "regulated" when consumers do not purchase your overpriced product. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Bob: Hey man did you buy the new expensive version of Windows?
Me: Nope. I decided to regulate Microsoft.
Bob: You are retarded.

Regulation, as understood in economics dealing with government (i.e. socialized medicine), is assumed to mean only this: government intervention that disrupts the free market forces.

[xhaan]

Regulation, as understood in economics dealing with government (i.e. socialized medicine), is assumed to mean only this: government intervention that disrupts the free market forces.

free market
–noun
an economic system in which prices and wages are determined by unrestricted competition between businesses, without government regulation or fear of monopolies.

Yeah, good luck with that ideal. Governments are people too, by the way.

Edit:
And you could have said GOVERNMENT regulation. I'm not going to assume what you mean, assume makes an 'ass of u and me'. Semantics and linguistics are important, you know.

[evoviiigsr]

Yeah, I can see how Canada is suffering. I mean, with there $9.2 trillion debt, $600 billion war, and the falling value of their currency. Oh wait! That is us! Interesting, and the value of our currency has fallen to the same as theirs. Plus, most Canadians actually support their evil little socialized health care system. What crazy buggers!

Thanks for telling me something I already know, about the US economy that is. But, what does that have to do with ANYTHING. Sure the US economy is doomed and the Canadian economy is doing much better. I didn't say that socialized medicine will be economically straining. And Canada's economic success has nothing to do with their health care system. :rolleyes::rolleyes:


Yes, empathy is quite a privilege. I'm sorry you have been denied it.


At least I was given the ability to reason. :thumbsup:


If that were the case, then I think we would be seeing a rush of Canadian doctors heading this way. However, its the opposite. In my community in Wyoming, we lost three doctors over the course of 4 years to Canada. Why do suppose that is if physicians have such a tough break there?


Wow you have convinced me with your pathetic anectodal experience. The fact is, U.S. doctors earn twice as much as Canadian ones. That is the only issue at hand. :huh:


A brilliant analogy except it overlooks that reality that in a fully privatized system, the companies would eventually come together, either through merger, acquisition, bankruptcy, etc. until one or a few had a monopoly on the entire system and could effectively charge whatever they wanted and do whatever they wanted.


Ah you are right! I just simply ignored the possibility of mergers and monopoly formations. Please. Let's say that somehow monopolies were formed. Ever heard of antitrust legislation? Sure, I am not a fan of regulation, but the costs of preventing hospital monopolies would be negligible in comparison to the socialized system that you so much adore.


Also your assumption of the subsidies isn't perfect as you are assuming it would only be for a very small percentage of the population. I pointed out earlier why this wouldn't be the case.

You are wrong. Despite whatever your social worker friends have told you (or any other ANECDOTAL source), the percentage of the population would be small (fact) and the subsidy system would work well (heavily supported theory). Of course not perfectly, but nothing in life works perfectly.

[AgentofGaming]

Yeah, I can see how Canada is suffering. I mean, with there $9.2 trillion debt, $600 billion war, and the falling value of their currency. Oh wait! That is us! Interesting, and the value of our currency has fallen to the same as theirs. Plus, most Canadians actually support their evil little socialized health care system. What crazy buggers!
Canada US Comparison (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Yes I just show my healthcard to the secretary at the clinic and wait 0-15 minutes and the doctor sees me. When I leave it doesn't cost me anything. ;D The clinic I goto is usually empty so I usually don't have to wait.

There is an Ontario health premium tax the Liberal government imposed within the last few years.

Canada also has longer life expectancy and lower death rate
not to mention "US spends 1.5 times more money on health care as expressed in % of GDP."
Also the Federal Government has been in surplus for the past decade and recently had such a large surplus, they cut the sales tax by 2%.


If that were the case, then I think we would be seeing a rush of Canadian doctors heading this way. However, its the opposite. In my community in Wyoming, we lost three doctors over the course of 4 years to Canada.
I think before that Canadian doctors went to the US because the Canadian system was starting to get underfunded by the previous Ontario Progressive Conservative party. Their tax cuts, privatization and bureaucracy cutting measures dubbed "The Common Sense Revolution" resulted in Walkerton E.Coli in the water incident. That combined with the 2003 power outage, skyrocketing electricity bills, angry striking teachers, overflowing hospital patients, crowded public transit commuters led to them losing their huge majority government.

[evoviiigsr]

Yeah, good luck with that ideal. Governments are people too, by the way.

Edit:
And you could have said GOVERNMENT regulation. I'm not going to assume what you mean, assume makes an 'ass of u and me'. Semantics and linguistics are important, you know.

A free market does not necessarily have to exist for free market forces to exist. I would not even dare to dream for anything resembling a free market to exist in the United States. Put down the dictionary and pick up some common sense and quit being so INTPish with your obsession with meticulous wording.


Governments are people too, by the way.


:laugh: Normally I would ignore posts like yours but its just too easy not to

[xhaan]

A free market does not necessarily have to exist for free market forces to exist. I would not even dare to dream for anything resembling a free market to exist in the United States. Put down the dictionary and pick up some common sense and quit being so INTPish with your obsession with meticulous wording.


You are right, I finally 'get' you. But how the hell am I supposed to know what you are saying, unless I assume previous context (which could be wrong if you are using it wrong).

What am I supposed to do, read your mind?

[evoviiigsr]

What am I supposed to do, read your mind?

hah, kinda..I dont think most INTJs are keen on defining their terms and assumptions precisely in situations like these. Not to mention that it had no significance on my overall argument. Are you sure you are not an INTP? I really get an INTP vibe from you.

[xhaan]

hah, kinda..I dont think most INTJs are keen on defining their terms and assumptions precisely in situations like these. Not to mention that it had no significance on my overall argument. Are you sure you are not an INTP? I really get an INTP vibe from you.

Maybe I bounce back and forth between P and J, I don't know. I have moments where I just 'get' things without 'details' too.

[Lights]

Yeah, good luck with that ideal. Governments are people too, by the way.

I love this. We jumped from debating political absolutes to debating economic absolutes. Obviously ideal systems don't work. Whether it's anarchy or communism, privatization or socialization, they simply won't work. It takes compromise and finding a model that incorporates the best of both of both worlds, kindof like the Canadians have done. But of course, there always people who will argue value judgments over common sense.

Thanks for telling me something I already know, about the US economy that is. But, what does that have to do with ANYTHING. Sure the US economy is doomed and the Canadian economy is doing much better. I didn't say that socialized medicine will be economically straining. And Canada's economic success has nothing to do with their health care system. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Well you make the argument that its such a terrible burden, and I just don't see many people crying about it in practice. :laugh:

At least I was given the ability to reason. :thumbsup:

A fine ability. And I hope I get to see it. ;)

Wow you have convinced me with your pathetic anectodal experience. The fact is, U.S. doctors earn twice as much as Canadian ones. That is the only issue at hand. :huh:

Is that the only one? Well considering that a good share of doctors are not allowed to treat patients, have to sell their souls to pharmaceutical companies, pay extravagant malpractice insurance costs, are required to deny many patients treatments they need in order to get ahead, etc. I can see why making twice as much money may be a necessity.

Ah you are right! I just simply ignored the possibility of mergers and monopoly formations. Please. Let's say that somehow monopolies were formed. Ever heard of antitrust legislation? Sure, I am not a fan of regulation, but the costs of preventing hospital monopolies would be negligible in comparison to the socialized system that you so much adore.

Oh, so we aren't for 100% privatization now? :stunned:

You are wrong. Despite whatever your social worker friends have told you (or any other ANECDOTAL source), the percentage of the population would be small (fact) and the subsidy system would work well (heavily supported theory). Of course not perfectly, but nothing in life works perfectly.

The interesting thing about economic "theory" is whenever they try to put it into practice it usually doesn't work. And as far as my "anecdotal" evidence, I'll believe a battle tested soldier over a Washington pencil pusher any day.

[AgentofGaming]

What? Do you honestly believe that? Sounds like you just have a very broad definition of regulation. You are NOT "regulated" when consumers do not purchase your overpriced product. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard.

Bob: Hey man did you buy the new expensive version of Windows?
Me: Nope. I decided to regulate Microsoft.
Bob: You are retarded.

Regulation, as understood in economics dealing with government (i.e. socialized medicine), is assumed to mean only this: government intervention that disrupts the free market forces.
Well boycotts do damage companies.

Prices go up with privatization and you can take from Canadian examples:
Hydro, highways, universities

[xhaan]

I love this. We jumped from debating political absolutes to debating economic absolutes. Obviously ideal systems don't work. Whether it's anarchy or communism, privatization or socialization, they simply won't work. It takes compromise and finding a model that incorporates the best of both of both worlds, kindof like the Canadians have done. But of course, there always people who will argue value judgments over common sense.

Heh, I'm not absolute, I hate absolute in fact. But what ISN'T absolute, is subjective, and if it is subjective, we must find consensus. So when people start saying things like 'free market forces', I need to know how free these forces are, because it depends.

[Lights]

Heh, I'm not absolute, I hate absolute in fact. But what ISN'T absolute, is subjective, and if it is subjective, we must find consensus. So when people start saying things like 'free market forces', I need to know how free these forces are, because it depends.

I wasn't saying you were arguing for absolutes. To the contrary, I was agreeing with what you were saying. :thumbsup:

[evoviiigsr]

Sorry, 99.99% privatization. I just rounded up. None of your other points are strong enough for counterarguments so we'll just leave it at that and let others chime in. Ahhhh...maybe I'll spare you one just for kicks.

You say in the U.S., doctors "have to sell their souls to pharmaceutical companies, pay extravagant malpractice insurance costs, are required to deny many patients treatments they need in order to get ahead.." I agree with all of this happening. Guess what? With a privatized system, those would be completely resolved (fact). What you are absolutely wrong about is that somehow salaries have increased to compensate for these increased physician costs. Nope. Physician salaries have remained steady over time. In fact, these high costs are a reason why many doctors can't even break even. Yeah I know a thing or two about physicians, considering I will be one in 4 years.

[xhaan]

I wasn't saying you were arguing for absolutes. To the contrary, I was agreeing with what you were saying. :thumbsup:

Cool. ;D

I personally am not a hardcore <insert whatever here>.
I'm kind of Libertarian, with some Socialist leanings. I feel that extremism doesn't work, whether it be extreme Capitalism, or extreme Socialism. I'd rather have a mixed economy that 'works well' than try to fit it to some preconceived rule.

And by socialism I mean: (sorry to put up another definition, but bear with me)

a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

That means the people, not the state, unless the 'state' IS the people.

[Lights]

Sorry, 99.99% privatization. I just rounded up. None of your other points are strong enough for counterarguments so we'll just leave it at that and let others chime in. Ahhhh...maybe I'll spare you one just for kicks.

:laugh: Whatever you say. :p

You say in the U.S., doctors "have to sell their souls to pharmaceutical companies, pay extravagant malpractice insurance costs, are required to deny many patients treatments they need in order to get ahead.." I agree with all of this happening. Guess what? With a privatized system, those would be completely resolved (fact). What you are absolutely wrong about is that somehow salaries have increased to compensate for these increased physician costs. Nope. Physician salaries have remained steady over time. In fact, these high costs are a reason why many doctors can't even break even. Yeah I know a thing or two about physicians, considering I will be one in 4 years.

Uh huh. I live with a physician. ;D

But go ahead and continue to believe that a free market is the answer to all the woes in the world. Anyone with a history book and a little common sense knows otherwise. :cool:

[evoviiigsr]

Cool. ;D

I'm kind of Libertarian, with some Socialist leanings.

That's like saying that you're a homosexual with homophobic tendencies. I guess you are just kinda confused on what each belief entails.

[AgentofGaming]

You should be a centrist. That way you can plagiarize all the good points off all the ideal extremist systems and be completely neutral about it.

For this topic (Socialized Health Care), I'll just cite the results from the link above again: (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
________________________________________
Health Care Expenditure as % of GDP (2004)
9.9% (CAN)
15.3% (US)
US spends 1.5 times more money on health care as expressed in % of GDP.

Death Rate (people immigrate to Canada to retire sometimes:rolleyes:)
7.9 deaths / 1,000 population (CAN)
8.3 deaths / 1,000 population (US)
US has a 4.8% higher death rate.

Life Expectancy
80.3 years (CAN)
78.0 years (US)
Canada has a 2.9% higher life expectancy.

_____________________________________
Conclusions:
So currently the health care system in Canada is more cost-effective
Pharmaceuticals are cheaper in Canada (it's mentioned in the news).
Therefore Healthcare is currently better in Canada, statistically.

[Lights]

Cool. ;D

I personally am not a hardcore <insert whatever here>.
I'm kind of Libertarian, with some Socialist leanings. I feel that extremism doesn't work, whether it be extreme Capitalism, or extreme Socialism. I'd rather have a mixed economy that 'works well' than try to fit it to some preconceived rule.

And by socialism I mean: (sorry to put up another definition, but bear with me)



That means the people, not the state, unless the 'state' IS the people.

You should look into the Green Party. They push for many Libertarian civil values and Democratic fiscal values.

[xhaan]

That's like saying that you're a homosexual with homophobic tendencies. I guess you are just kinda confused on what each belief entails.

Heh, common response. But.

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

[Lights]

Heh, common response. But.

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

Whoa, an anti authoritarian socialism...I didn't think such a thing could even exist in theory. :stunned:

"Anarcho-communism". I should adopt that theory just to drive certain Anarcho-capitalists insane. :laugh:

[xhaan]

Whoa, an anti authoritarian socialism...I didn't think such a thing could even exist in theory. :stunned:

"Anarcho-communism". I should adopt that theory just to drive certain Anarcho-capitalists insane. :laugh:

Yeah, too bad it probably wouldn't work in a pure form, much like other political/social theories.

[prometheus]

Sorry, but it is the case. Unregulated does not mean immune to laws. Companies could still be sued, prosecuted, etc, for any unlawful activity. If by doing "anything it damn well pleases", you mean charging higher prices, then sure they can try, but not if they want to stay in business for long :)



Excellent points.

What I see as the main difference here is some feel "economic equality" (lowering everyone to a common denominator) trumps property rights, and others of us don't.

I've come to recognize the phrase "for the good of the people" (and those like it), as a religious mantra that is based on faith and not facts. It is impossible to argue facts against faith.

[xhaan]

Excellent points.
What I see as the main difference here is some feel "economic equality" (lowering everyone to a common denominator) trumps property rights, and others of us don't.


If you mean property rights as in, you don't own your own home, then no. If you mean that a scientist can't go into a lab to try and find a cure for cancer, because he doesn't own the lab, then yes.

[prometheus]

But go ahead and continue to believe that a free market is the answer to all the woes in the world. Anyone with a history book and a little common sense knows otherwise. :cool:

Oh pleeeese, What history book shows that controlled markets have had more success than free markets.

Show me, just one.

[Lights]

Yeah, too bad it probably wouldn't work in a pure form, much like other political/social theories.

Yeah. It sounds a lot like Native American tribes, especially the Iroquois Nation. Eventually some militarized society will come through and conquer the decentralized and non united communities/municipalities just as the United States came through and conquered each native tribe.

I've come to recognize the phrase "for the good of the people" (and those like it), as a religious mantra that is based on faith and not facts. It is impossible to argue facts against faith.

Yeah, you should try arguing against the anarcho-capitalist faith with facts.:laugh:

Every political ideology comes down to faith.

[xhaan]

Yeah. It sounds a lot like Native American tribes, especially the Iroquois Nation. Eventually some militarized society will come through and conquer the decentralized and non united communities/municipalities just as the United States came through and conquered each native tribe.


And I probably like it because I am of close Native American descent... maybe it's in naturally my blood or something.

And really, I could sponge a lot because of that, if I bothered. But I want to live for myself, not by someone supposedly giving me back what was taken. It happened, we are a new society now... great for the native nations which still have their own council, they keep the history alive... but I've never had the opportunity to be a part of that, and now I kind of don't care to, not by the government 'allowing' it to me anyway.

[Lights]

Oh pleeeese, What history book shows that controlled markets have had more success than free markets.

Show me, just one.

It depends? Are we measuring success in profit or human misery? Because free markets certainly have beat out regulated markets in both. Of course, moderately regulated markets have done remarkably well in limiting human misery while still bringing in a nice profit. :p

[prometheus]

If you mean property rights as in, you don't own your own home, then no. If you mean that a scientist can't go into a lab to try and find a cure for cancer, because he doesn't own the lab, then yes.


The fruits of your labors are your property. Being deprived of them is theft.


From Wiki:

Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights.

Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate, intellectual property (arguably) or some other kind of property. It is embodied in an ownership right also referred to as title.

In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit.

You really don't own your home either, even if you hold free title. Someone can deprive you of it if you don't pay them (property taxes). At best you might be leasing it from TPTB. Don't forget they can also just simply steal it through eminent domain.

[xhaan]

The fruits of your labors are your property. Being deprived of them is theft.


From Wiki:

Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights.

Ownership is the state or fact of exclusive rights and control over property, which may be an object, land/real estate, intellectual property (arguably) or some other kind of property. It is embodied in an ownership right also referred to as title.

In Anglo-Saxon law, an exclusive right is a de facto, non-tangible prerogative existing in law (that is, the power or, in a wider sense, right) to perform an action or acquire a benefit and to permit or deny others the right to perform the same action or to acquire the same benefit.

You really don't own your home either, even if you hold free title. Someone can deprive you of it if you don't pay them (property taxes). At best you might be leasing it from TPTB. Don't forget they can also just simply steal it through eminent domain.

Yes, you are correct. I kind of call that 'token ownership', and I don't like it. But I'm talking in my view of Libertarian Socialism, not what actually is right now.

And I do 'own' my home, it isn't taxed, because.. it's a trailer. I can take it anywhere I want to. But I'm subject to regulations or paying rent for the land it sits on... and I suppose if the government wanted my junky trailer for something, they could take it from me.

[Lights]

Yes, you are correct. I kind of call that 'token ownership', and I don't like it. But I'm talking in my view of Libertarian Socialism, not what actually is right now.

And I do 'own' my home, it isn't taxed, because.. it's a trailer. I can take it anywhere I want to. But I'm subject to regulations or paying rent for the land it sits on... and I suppose if the government wanted my junky trailer for something, they could take it from me.

In fact, I can't imagine there would even be the same concept of "property" in a Libertarian Socialism. Native Americans didn't exactly "own" land after all. What they had was just always subject to trade or for use by the tribe.

[xhaan]

In fact, I can't imagine there would even be the same concept of "property" in a Libertarian Socialism. Native Americans didn't exactly "own" land after all. What they had was just always subject to trade or for use by the tribe.

Exactly! Nobody owned land, it was shared. Of course, people wouldn't be taking 'your' food or 'your' house, that's just plain rude... but I find it was often customary to GIVE these things, if they are wanted or needed, without being selfish. e.g. if someone likes the hat you are wearing, you offer it as a gift, or a trade, voluntarily.

And it works in reverse too, just wanted to say that even though it should be obvious, in case the 'nobody is taking MY stuff' comes up again.

[anul]

I've experienced both systems first hand by living in both Canada and the United States. Health care isn't a born right. It is something that someone must pay for. It's sad when someone has to die because they can't afford the technology. It's also sad when someone dies because of long waits and substandard technology. I see keeping the weak people alive on tax dollars a poor choice. My wife had to wait two months just to get into a specialist because of socialized health care. If her condition was extremely serious she may be dead already. Her uncle would be alive today if he had private health care. Instead he had socialized health care and died. I would rather not die because of long lines and high taxes. So now since I've experience social health care first hand. I think it's in Americas best interest to avoid it. Unless Americans want to pay higher taxes.

[Lights]

I've experienced both systems first hand by living in both Canada and the United States. Health care isn't a born right. It is something that someone must pay for. It's sad when someone has to die because they can't afford the technology. It's also sad when someone dies because of long waits and substandard technology. I see keeping the weak people alive on tax dollars a poor choice. My wife had to wait two months just to get into a specialist because of socialized health care. If her condition was extremely serious she may be dead already. Her uncle would be alive today if he had private health care. Instead he had socialized health care and died. I would rather not die because of long lines and high taxes. So now since I've experience social health care first hand. I think it's in Americas best interest to avoid it. Unless Americans want to pay higher taxes.

Your the first person I've heard who actually had some negative comments about Canada's health care. When did you live there and in what province?

[prometheus]

Every political ideology comes down to faith.

I believe I own myself, and my property.

You believe people and their property are owned by someone besides themselves.

Which belief system is ethically correct?

If you wish to continue to argue the second, and really believe someone with more need is entitled to the property of someone who has more ability, or property. Tell me where in WY you live (my guess is Jackassson Hole). I'll swing by and you can give me some of your earnings, I'll bring 1040 to prove you made more money than me last year.

[xhaan]

I've experienced both systems first hand by living in both Canada and the United States. Health care isn't a born right. It is something that someone must pay for. It's sad when someone has to die because they can't afford the technology. It's also sad when someone dies because of long waits and substandard technology. I see keeping the weak people alive on tax dollars a poor choice. My wife had to wait two months just to get into a specialist because of socialized health care. If her condition was extremely serious she may be dead already. Her uncle would be alive today if he had private health care. Instead he had socialized health care and died. I would rather not die because of long lines and high taxes. So now since I've experience social health care first hand. I think it's in Americas best interest to avoid it. Unless Americans want to pay higher taxes.

Hm. Sounds like a broken implementation, than an all together 'inherently flawed' system to me. I'm sorry this happened though, I'm not trivializing it. Though if CEO's were not off playing golf and owning their own jets and stuff, maybe there would be a bit more money for everybody. not that I'm against wealth, but you can't say that this stuff doesn't add up. Imagine what would happen if people just gave the money they spent only on one daily coffee or chips... let alone unnecessary, high luxuries. Assuming that this money actually would be used well, and not wasted by stupid organizations.

[anul]

Your the first person I've heard who actually had some negative comments about Canada's health care. When did you live there and in what province?

I'm currently living in Saskatchewan, and all negative social health care stories come from here. I haven't researched any other provinces health care system so I can't comment on those.

Hm. Sounds like a broken implementation, than an all together 'inherently flawed' system to me. I'm sorry this happened though, I'm not trivializing it. Though if CEO's were not off playing golf and owning their own jets and stuff, maybe there would be a bit more money for everybody. not that I'm against wealth, but you can't say that this stuff doesn't add up. Imagine what would happen if people just gave the money they spent only on one daily coffee or chips... let alone unnecessary, high luxuries. Assuming that this money actually would be used well, and not wasted by stupid organizations.

I do imagine the amount of money adds up if people sacrificed more. Except the United States wasn't founded on Socialist principles. If you want wealth then it's in your best interest to work hard. A fortune doesn't amass itself it requires hard work, and occasionally tramping on human rights. It's the American dream after all. Now if a section of the United States succeed because they wanted social health care that much, then that's fine. An easier way would be to make it state wide health care. So if I don't want your inferior health care I can just move to a different state with privatized health care.

[xhaan]

I believe I own myself, and my property.

You believe people and their property are owned by someone besides themselves.

Which belief system is ethically correct?

If you wish to continue to argue the second, and really believe someone with more need is entitled to the property of someone who has more ability, or property. Tell me where in WY you live (my guess is Jackassson Hole). I'll swing by and you can give me some of your earnings, I'll bring 1040 to prove you made more money than me last year.

You are still seeing it as one way! Stuck on this 'owning' thing.
You give to me, I give to you. I give to you, you give to me. What's the difference, if you aren't stingy? You'd still have all you need, and so would everyone else.

[Lights]

I believe I own myself, and my property.

Interesting belief.

You believe people and their property are owned by someone besides themselves.

Nah, I don't believe that. I'm an anarcho-communist now.;) I don't really believe in the concept of "property".

Which belief system is ethically correct?

Ethics are subjective to culture.

If you wish to continue to argue the second, and really believe someone with more need is entitled to the property of someone who has more ability, or property.

Is that even a sentence?

Tell me where in WY you live (my guess is Jackassson Hole).

I'm from Star Valley, which extends from Alpine to Afton. I live in Idaho now.

I'll swing by and you can give me some of your earnings, I'll bring 1040 to prove you made more money than me last year.

I went $5,500 in debt last year. You must be doing really, really bad.





Lights added to this post, 7 minutes and 13 seconds later...

I'm currently living in Saskatchewan, and all negative social health care stories come from here. I haven't researched any other provinces health care system so I can't comment on those.

Isn't that a really conservative province?

[anul]

Oh goodness no that's Alberta. I'm not sure the details, but my wifes grandparents have been clamoring about their new sort of privatized health care system. I'm not sure of the current reigning party because I recently moved here, and don't care about local politics since the Libertarian party doesn't exist here.

[xhaan]

In case nobody read the link (and I'm inclined to think most did not)

Libertarian socialism is a group of political philosophies that aim to create a society without political, economic or social hierarchies – a society in which all violent or coercive institutions would be dissolved, and in their place every person would have free, equal access to tools of information and production, or a society in which such coercive institutions and hierarchies were drastically reduced in scope.[1]

This equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions and private property[2], in order that direct control of the means of production and resources will be gained by the working class and society as a whole. Libertarian socialism also constitutes a tendency of thought that informs the identification, criticism and practical dismantling of illegitimate authority in all aspects of social life. Accordingly libertarian socialists believe that “the exercise of power in any institutionalized form – whether economic, political, religious, or sexual – brutalizes both the wielder of power and the one over whom it is exercised.”

[Lights]

I do imagine the amount of money adds up if people sacrificed more. Except the United States wasn't founded on Socialist principles. If you want wealth then it's in your best interest to work hard. A fortune doesn't amass itself it requires hard work, and occasionally tramping on human rights. It's the American dream after all. Now if a section of the United States succeed because they wanted social health care that much, then that's fine. An easier way would be to make it state wide health care. So if I don't want your inferior health care I can just move to a different state with privatized health care.

You know I've made a suggestion extremely similar to that one more than once in this thread.

Oh goodness no that's Alberta. I'm not sure the details, but my wifes grandparents have been clamoring about their new sort of privatized health care system. I'm not sure of the current reigning party because I recently moved here, and don't care about local politics since the Libertarian party doesn't exist here.

So how well the health care works may have a lot to do with where you live. Interesting. :thinking:

[xhaan]

I'm currently living in Saskatchewan, and all negative social health care stories come from here. I haven't researched any other provinces health care system so I can't comment on those.



I do imagine the amount of money adds up if people sacrificed more. Except the United States wasn't founded on Socialist principles. If you want wealth then it's in your best interest to work hard. A fortune doesn't amass itself it requires hard work, and occasionally tramping on human rights. It's the American dream after all. Now if a section of the United States succeed because they wanted social health care that much, then that's fine. An easier way would be to make it state wide health care. So if I don't want your inferior health care I can just move to a different state with privatized health care.

I guess just because that's the way it is, that means it shouldn't be changed. Right? Hm. I guess since <insert country> wasn't founded on capitalist principals, then they should not change if it's going poorly.

And I did work hard. People are living in million dollar houses that *I* helped put up, and I worked for Dana for a while, so theres some thousands of Durangos, Prowlers and other Dodge/Chrysler vehicles which are driving around right now with parts that I assembled. And I didn't do a shitty job of it either, some other people working there did... I was the one getting their asses transferred to somewhere else or fired, so I didn't have to deal with their shoddy work and correct their mistakes all the damn time.

[anul]

I guess just because that's the way it is, that means it shouldn't be changed. Right? Hm. I guess since <insert country> wasn't founded on capitalist principals, then they should not change if it's going poorly.

And I did work hard. People are living in million dollar houses that *I* helped put up, and I worked for Dana for a while, so theres some thousands of Durangos, Prowlers and other Dodge/Chrysler vehicles which are driving around right now with parts that I assembled. And I didn't do a shitty job of it either, some other people working there did... I was the one getting their asses transferred to somewhere else or fired, so I didn't have to deal with their shoddy work and correct their mistakes all the damn time.

Well I don't see private health care as a problem. So ideally it shouldn't be changed in the United States.

My father worked hard for Ford for most of my life. So since you were working for a car manufacturer as well I'm sure you had health care coverage. Free health care doesn't exist you're going to pay for it in the end. I would rather pay a third party for health care than the government through taxes. I don't trust the government with my mail. So why would I want to put my well being in the hands of the government?

[xhaan]

Well I don't see private health care as a problem. So ideally it shouldn't be changed in the United States.

My father worked hard for Ford for most of my life. So since you were working for a car manufacturer as well I'm sure you had health care coverage. Free health care doesn't exist you're going to pay for it in the end. I would rather pay a third party for health care than the government through taxes. I don't trust the government with my mail. So why would I want to put my well being in the hands of the government?

I didn't have coverage because I was an extended temp, basically splitting what the starting pay was, I think it was close to $20 an hour but I got $9, and the temp service got a fee in addition to that, with overtime though I was making $700 to $800 a week. I could have gotten hired in after a certain amount of time as a temp, but some stuff happened and I cracked, wound up in a nut-house, I was cleared by Dana to go back (the shift supervisor liked me, even made me a line leader... I was more reliable than the 'blue shirts' that actually were employed directly) but the doctors told me I'd likely crack again under that kind of pressure.

[Lights]

Well I don't see private health care as a problem. So ideally it shouldn't be changed in the United States.

My father worked hard for Ford for most of my life. So since you were working for a car manufacturer as well I'm sure you had health care coverage. Free health care doesn't exist you're going to pay for it in the end. I would rather pay a third party for health care than the government through taxes. I don't trust the government with my mail. So why would I want to put my well being in the hands of the government?

Well I don't think I have yet to meet a Libertarian who wasn't a nay sayer when it comes to government involvement in health care.

[xhaan]

Well I don't think I have yet to meet a Libertarian who wasn't a nay sayer when it comes to government involvement in health care.

And yeah. How many times to I have to say, the state sucks, and has almost NOTHING to do with the socialism I'm talking about. (not directed at you, but the people that keep rehashing.)

Here's my idea.
Land and resources are not owned, and are decentralized.
This means:

The PEOPLE can build universities, factories, hospitals, that anyone may go to and learn or do or make things freely (not necessarily gratis free, but without bureaucratic restriction) it may be regulated by decentralized peers, or union, committee, whatever, of citizens of the community which this facility helps. People will obviously want the best possible, because it is for them, and by them. Nobody to say 'you can't build that here' or 'you can't afford it'.

This of course, is a dream. But that doesn't mean that we can't learn from aspects of it.

[anul]

I didn't have coverage because I was an extended temp, basically splitting what the starting pay was, I think it was close to $20 an hour but I got $9, and the temp service got a fee in addition to that, with overtime though I was making $700 to $800 a week. I could have gotten hired in after a certain amount of time as a temp, but some stuff happened and I cracked, wound up in a nut-house, I was cleared by Dana to go back (the shift supervisor liked me, even made me a line leader... I was more reliable than the 'blue shirts' that actually were employed directly) but the doctors told me I'd likely crack again under that kind of pressure.

Well that's your problem, temp services are evil and should be abolished. I used to work for one in Chicago for office work. The pay is terrible and everyone walks all over you. My dad explained to me how shitty the Ford employee hierarchy is. If yours was any similar I could see how it would be easy to be walked over.

Well I don't think I have yet to meet a Libertarian who wasn't a nay sayer when it comes to government involvement in health care.

Well that's the problem with kids these days. They just want to marry the government to everything and have it run on tax dollars. They don't realize that the government is a waste regardless of what political party is in power. Kids these days and their government bwahahaha.


All Libertarians I know agree with the government staying out of health care. Except in Canada since health care isn't going anywhere, so it's a different scenario entirely. Generally if I were to meet someone who claimed to be a Libertarian and was in favor for social health care. I would calmly explain that social health care doesn't go with Libertarian principles, so I would find a new political affiliation one which supports social health care. Then if they didn't agree I would humiliate them into defeat.

[xhaan]

Well that's your problem, temp services are evil and should be abolished. I used to work for one in Chicago for office work. The pay is terrible and everyone walks all over you. My dad explained to me how shitty the Ford employee hierarchy is. If yours was any similar I could see how it would be easy to be walked over.


Yup, the blue shirts got all the good pay, all the sick days, all the screwing around more before you get fired, more off time...
We had mandatory 7 days. They were supposed to give us an off day every other week, but that was usually canceled more often than not.

Also the quotas were excessively high and fast for temp lines it seemed. Which was ok if you were on like a bearing cap machine, which does all the work, but drive shaft assembly was back breaking work, even with machines, especially doing the run-out gauging and phasing, which was done by hand initially, clamping the shaft to spinners with the gauge probes resting near the tube ends... and adjusted with a hammer, then after welding it goes on to a straightening press which is also done 'by eye'... it was a pain in the ass, my hands would be numb and like claws by the end of a 12 hour night.. and when I worked into second shift, I often ran all three machines in my line section, by myself.

And some of the shafts were not small or light either, some of them were almost as tall as I am, when assembled. I felt sorry for the balancing guys at the bottom of the lines, having to pick up and wield each one of these things and stick it properly into the balancing machine.

[AgentofGaming]

You are still seeing it as one way! Stuck on this 'owning' thing.
You give to me, I give to you. I give to you, you give to me. What's the difference, if you aren't stingy? You'd still have all you need, and so would everyone else.

If you started a partnership business then you wouldn't have to give it around so much.

Oh goodness no that's Alberta. I'm not sure the details, but my wifes grandparents have been clamoring about their new sort of privatized health care system. I'm not sure of the current reigning party because I recently moved here, and don't care about local politics since the Libertarian party doesn't exist here.

Saskatchewan has been under the New Democratic Party (Social-Democratic) for 15 years. Last year they lost to the Saskatchewan Party (Liberals + Progressive Conservatives)


So how well the health care works may have a lot to do with where you live. Interesting. :thinking:
Actually healthcare is mainly the responsibility of the province (so yes it differs) although there is some Federal investment. As well hospitals tend to be congested compared to clinics.

Health care in Canada (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
Canadian and American health care systems compared (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )
The Canadian healthcare system gets better results than the American healthcare system. I'm not saying the Canadian one is perfect though. The US system currently isn't performing as well.

So anyone ever see this quote? [Alpha Centauri] Sounds like the deregulation you guys are describing.

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last loose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart he dreams himself your master." Then there's a picture of this corporate guy trying to hide facts from the people.

[xhaan]

If you started a partnership business then you wouldn't have to give it around so much.


I guess that's the difference between me and other people here... I don't want that. I mean yeah, I'd like to start a business actually, but it seems overwhelming to do so. I'm not at all against 'charging' for health care, or anything else, don't get me wrong. it's the selfish OVER charging that I'm against. Health care is not cars, or computers. It's something people need to live, and it's getting about as bad as fief lords controlling their tenant farmers.

And I guess I'm broke because I 'wasted' my money by giving it away. Sure, I bought stuff for myself, who doesn't want a few things? But maybe if I was a selfish ass and kept it all invested for things for me, then maybe I'd be independently wealthy instead of dependently broke.

[Brian N]

"That taxes are legalized theft is a very trite and simplistic argument. I think you can do better, and this debate deserves it."

It's an ethical maxim. A conclusion stemming from the self-evident deduction that no individual, acting in manner of any color of positive 'law' may thereby extract, via force, to satisfy his or her needs or the needs of any institution they may serve. It might be imprudent to suggest studying the whole body of deontics at this point, but if you want to understand how radical libertarians are getting to that point at all, you'll have to.

"People that rely on trite lines such as "taxes are theft" are putting their ideological principles ahead of their empirical sense."

No. Ethics are being put ahead of expediency. That's called having integrity. Chances are, if you know someone like that, you admire them for it. And rightly so.

"I don't care about your abstract theories of government. I care about what works."

Works to what ends? Whose ends? In any case, the tortured misuse of both 'abstract' and 'theor[y]' in that statement is disturbing.

"If healthcare works better if it's completely privatized, then I'm for privatization."

I'm going to make a short leap and assume you mean satisfies the greatest number of people possible. Only the free market can do that successfully, without violence.

"If socialized medicine works better, then I'm for that."

Even if it means holding a gun to a man's head, and saying "you will NOT pay a doctor for his services directly!" or implying such in the law? You don't hold the gun yourself. You have others called auditors and policemen do that for you. You don't even tell the gunmen to hold it. You have intermediaries for that called legislators. Your (unwitting) use of proxies in this doesn't excuse it one bit.

"And as far as I can see it, as it has been empirically tested in the real world in real countries, the U.S. health care system is inferior to that in most other developed countries."

Granting the premise for a moment, that such a thing as you describe, an'empirical test has been undertaken, how is it possible? What were the control groups? Who kept quantitative data noting the deviations between the groups, and isolated the acting variables? The answers to these questions are: It isn't, there weren't and no one. Be careful with that casual epistemological approach; laboratory exactitude can be difficult and questionable in the laboratory but what you're describing, even undertaken honestly, is impossible. To put it in positivist language; the confidence range is very broad, so it isolates nothing, or next to nothing.

Second, would you for a second kid yourself into thinking a system as corporatized, monopolized and coercively regulated as the healthcare industry counts as even slightly representing a 'free market' in even the most threadbare sense of that term?

"It serves more people for a cheaper cost and is more efficient. The only advantage the U.S. system has is that it's better at
Research & Development, and if you're super-wealthy you can afford to hire the best doctors in the world because they're attracted to the high salaries. And frankly, that last argument, that our health care system is really great at serving the lucky small percentage of really rich people that can afford it, is rather....problematic, to say the least."

Income disparity is not, of itself, a problem. The circumstances that cause income disparity are usually the problem; to wit, to produce well, to sell to many customers and thusly be rich is not at all problematic. You've gained as you've given value to others. Many who feed at the state trough are said to do so in 'the public interest.' It's a line at least as old as the arguments for guilds and mercantilism in Louis XIV's day. It's also as tawdry, phony and bankrupt now as it was then. It was scaffolding; makeshift lies for a makeshift idea. Like Marxism without the apocalyptic elements; they just wanted to steal some more.

"...inferior to...It serves more people for a cheaper cost and is more efficient."

So, ah, you're going to have to explain to this unwashed barbarian what a better system would do?

"There are few things more tiresome than political dogmatics."

You're just as dogmatic, but you don't know what your assumptions are. Prometheus does know what his assumptions are, and is thus willing and, more importantly, able to change them if they're wrong.

"Let's try and focus on reality and the effects health care has on real people, instead of ivory tower ideology. Libertarian principles can be carried way too far just like socialist principles - and I should know, living as I do in the most libertarian country in the world (as far as the government is concerned)."

The problem with this statement is precisely the theoretical argument advanced previously; socialist systems (and monopolists on the market) cannot calculate, cannot plan, and so the results are always, every single time, disastrous. The Soviet Union proves this point amply.

"Not really. You're recycling old, tired, and ideologically simplistic arguments under the guise of "libertarianism". Taxes have been around for as long as civilizations have, and indeed are one of the hallmarks of a civilized society as distinct from barbarism."

So lemme get this straight. Institutionalizing theft is 'civilized'? So the Icelanders and the Irish were uncivilized, then? Good thing Ollie Cromwell showed up to do the Irish a bit of good. In principle your statement is nothing if not an apology for oriental despotism.

"It is the way in which they are levied and subsequently directed, which is contestable, not the very phenomenon of their existence (oh, unless you're a contributor to talkback radio, or something)."

It's not open to debate? Says who? Says you? Since when did you count to determine what can and cannot be rationally debated? Or are you going for the extremist line on legal positivism; If it's a law, it must be good for us, natural, apodictic, etc.? You're elevating the arbitrary whims of immoral beings to the status of laws of nature. The state is not God, never was, and never will be. It's a 20th century phenomenon to deify the state as it is now, but it has its precedents. You're talking about human beings, no more special, and certainly less moral, than yourself. Power attracts evil men (including Hillary Clinton, who is a very evil man)...

"The vast amount of millionaires in the world are made through inheritance, not boot straping."

An infinite regression begins to emerge there...The monumental ignorance of economics on top of it is just too shameful to point out.

"He got it by depriving the competition of it who would have done whatever anyhow."

Deprived, how, exactly? Be specific. This is history, not theory. If you analyze the market with more depth than most economists (the only ones who do it seriously are heterodox) you'll see a rather interesting pattern emerge in such 'hordes'. In a free market they simply don't exist. In a hampered market they arise out of brute violence. The state, itself, is the most powerful of these gangs. The US is exceptional in history because once the chance to have actual liberty was apparent, they abandoned it like bloody fools.

"The strongest correlation of how wealthy a man will become is how wealthy is father was."

Will become? there's a lot packed into those two words...Are you sure about that? Best be careful with statements like those.

"You hold wealth by our consent, we can take it from you at any time, you have only one vote in it, so dont piss us off."

That's the ethic of rapists, thieves and murderers throughout history. You're thinking like a sociopath, and you're hiding it behind this tribal "we" to give it some illusion of authenticity and apparent reality. It's just you standing there demanding something that doesn't belong to you. The nicest you have any right to hope for is a curt 'no' and be glad for that.

"There's a difference between the question "how do we pay for it"? and the question "are taxes a good idea"?"

You're missing the point. It's not a question of 'are taxes a good idea' but 'are those who levy taxes right in doing so?' It is the task of ethics to determine this. If the answer is no (the answer is no) then the former question is necessarily a null. Why bother determining the efficacy of such a thing? Were this 1950 at the Kremlin, why not say, "The discussion is not whether or not Gulag is a good idea, but how best to pay for it," and admit that the barbarism implicit in your statement has no limits? If it has such a limit, why? Is it that you see taking innocent human lives more egregious than taking their property? How so? Their property is the product of past efforts. What is theirs, in the true sense of the concept, is their life. If you'll accept that axiom, you'll see how the whole 'health care' debate is really a house of cards hiding a much more important debate; the debate over the use of force. It's at the often unspoken (except in radical libertarian circles) heart of every single public policy debate. It's there, waiting. As long as no one touches the fire stick of truth, they can go on and on about 'benefits to the body politic'* in free speech or 'public safety is improved by private firearms ownership'* in gun control debates. They miss it entirely; no one wants to admit to the fundamental truth that violence will be necessary to ban guns, violence against the innocent. Violence would be necessary to prevent undesired material from entering print. Likewise, initiated violence is necessary for instantiating anything against the will of the non-aggressive actors in any situation. They want to miss the point, because a scrupulously moral human being would always look at that and say, "it's wrong. stop it," without exception.

"Who said anything about production?"

What is not an economic good is simply a natural given. For example, air. Now, if were to build space colonies (or at the bottom of the ocean) air would cease to be a given, it too, would require effort to produce. Meanwhile, let us assume that somehow, the various needs of health care become abundant to the point where no production is or ever will be (for the foreseeable future) necessary to get it; it then becomes an ultimate given of human action. People would generally stop worrying about their health, just as we don't worry about the oxygen content in the air we breath now. Breathing is never discussed in economic terms because it is not necessary for production to enter into the picture of acquisition. Breathe, and breathe deep! In the real world, health care is an economic good. It has to be produced, and that requires people. Either you force people, or they do things voluntarily.

"I see a lot of skepticism about socialized health care here. Maybe I am wrong, but the educational system on U.S. is socialized, isn't it ?"

Yes, yes it is. It's almost completely monopolized by the government. Only home schoolers and private schools make any kind of counter-impact. Any attempt to evaluate the disparities of education comparing the typical home schooled child with the typical public school child is embarrassing to public schools, if you believe that they are built and maintained to educate children. They're not, but that's another discussion.

I was going to do a post-by-post dissection of this discussion, but I'll stop for now, with this point;

"So far I haven't heard any arguments that say America wouldn't benefit, only people saying that their personal ideology would be violated. So I'm just curious, does anyone actually have any new or relevant point to make about how America would or would not benefit from socialized health care?"

I'm going to drop a name; Ludwig von Mises. If you don't know what he had to say on this subject, or why it's still pertinent, and how it explains a number of economic phenomena related, you aren't qualified to discuss this. I recommend you start with his book Socialism (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). But it's just a start. There's much more to learn.

*Both these statements are, to my knowledge, true.

[LordHawk]

Why is it we rail against socialized health care but are perfectly fine letting other services be socialized? What would we say in America if we called the police to investigate a robbery and they handed us a bill? Or if we called the fire department and got a bill? Nobody says that we should turn policing and fire services over to the private sector because socialized policing and fire would be poorly paid and undertrained and incapable. Obviously the current system in the states isn't working and something should be done to fix it, whatever words you want to use to describe it.
Perhaps the next time we have a 200 million dollar powerball lottery, we should just start handing out a million or so to every family.

[1OFMANY]

Why is it we rail against socialized health care but are perfectly fine letting other services be socialized? What would we say in America if we called the police to investigate a robbery and they handed us a bill? Or if we called the fire department and got a bill? Nobody says that we should turn policing and fire services over to the private sector because socialized policing and fire would be poorly paid and undertrained and incapable. Obviously the current system in the states isn't working and something should be done to fix it, whatever words you want to use to describe it.
Perhaps the next time we have a 200 million dollar powerball lottery, we should just start handing out a million or so to every family.


Structured socialized medicine in the US at this time is a bad idea. Yes, we do need a solution to our problem, the government is not that solution.

[LordHawk]

Putting aside what the solution may be, I just find it a bit ridiculous that in some cases we want socialized services and in others we don't.

I have just recently finished Michael Moore's film Sicko and am in the process of deciding which half needs to be thrown out and which half is true.

[Brian N]

Sir, let me say that I am against all coercive socialization. Actually, coercion is at the heart of the whole debate; if you want to form a commune, live among like-minded folks and do your own thing, I won't bother you, as long as you're not hurting me (or anyone else) in the process. That's it.

[1OFMANY]

Of course we pick and choose. You would NOT want some things run by private companies( police and fire etc.)

Brian hit it on the head. Do not force me into anything and pretend its for my own good. Now you can't please all the people all the time, but thats what the US was founded on, freedom of choice. The idealistic things people preach about in arguements are felt by all, however it doesn't out-weigh the freedoms we value more. And yes this is where people will come up with some smart-ass comments about freedom, about the US , about anything, but the fact remains is that we value it and MOST people in the US value their freedom more than their security. Just as it should be :P

/rant off

[yondyr]

Were my and other like minded peoples taxes released from other duties, I suspect a well funded police and fire service might emerge. Here, now, the only fire service I have is volunteer and it functions very well.

[Lights]

It's an ethical maxim. A conclusion stemming from the self-evident deduction that no individual, acting in manner of any color of positive 'law' may thereby extract, via force, to satisfy his or her needs or the needs of any institution they may serve. It might be imprudent to suggest studying the whole body of deontics at this point, but if you want to understand how radical libertarians are getting to that point at all, you'll have to.

Wouldn't you say that ethics are subjective depending upon culture and individuals? Isn't it possible that what is self evident to you may seem trite to others in comparison to their principles? Are their ethical principles any less valid than yours because they aren't in agreement with you? There are those who think it is unethical for an individual to hoard more resources than necessary for themselves, while others suffer. There are also people who don't value property in the same way as you do, and who would find it very unethical to lay claim to what they see as belonging to everyone. Would you conclude that those are unethical people? This libertarian argument seems to be saying that nobody should forcefully take another's property. However, the basis for this argument is on "the right to property" which not everybody shares. Also, since people choose to live in a democracy (or a Constitutional Republic in our case), they make the choice to abide by whatever the majority of people decide to do. So it can't be said, that while a Libertarian is living freely in our country, that they are being forced to do anything against their will. They always have the option to leave the country, to try to change the laws, or to even protest by sitting in jail. So it seems clear to me that it does not violate the Libertarian ethic mentioned above to volunteer taxes in exchange for the right to live in a taxing country. I believe the only way a Libertarian could see themselves being coerced within our society is if they delude themselves into believing they are being taxed against their will.

Works to what ends? Whose ends? In any case, the tortured misuse of both 'abstract' and 'theor[y]' in that statement is disturbing.

I believe what he meant was that there has never been an independent "Anarcho-capitalistic" or purely libertarian system in the real world. As such, they exist only principle.

I'm going to make a short leap and assume you mean satisfies the greatest number of people possible. Only the free market can do that successfully, without violence.

What evidence do you base this claim on? How do you know that different situations don't warrant different approaches?

Even if it means holding a gun to a man's head, and saying "you will NOT pay a doctor for his services directly!" or implying such in the law? You don't hold the gun yourself. You have others called auditors and policemen do that for you. You don't even tell the gunmen to hold it. You have intermediaries for that called legislators. Your (unwitting) use of proxies in this doesn't excuse it one bit.

How do you come to the analogy, that somebody would be forced into such a system, when they choose to live within that system and thus volunteer their resources? As I don't see many Libertarians sitting in jail, clamoring to leave the country, or actively protesting and working to change the laws, I have to conclude that most volunteer their resources to taxes.

Granting the premise for a moment, that such a thing as you describe, an'empirical test has been undertaken, how is it possible? What were the control groups? Who kept quantitative data noting the deviations between the groups, and isolated the acting variables? The answers to these questions are: It isn't, there weren't and no one. Be careful with that casual epistemological approach; laboratory exactitude can be difficult and questionable in the laboratory but what you're describing, even undertaken honestly, is impossible. To put it in positivist language; the confidence range is very broad, so it isolates nothing, or next to nothing.

Pedantics aside, it is clear that he meant "empirical" in the observed sense, not the experimental one. He was asking, at what point in the real world has there ever been a successful independent "Anarcho-capitalistic" or purely Libertarian society? The answer is there never has been. The closest things would be the Wild West, Vikings, and Irish which are far from admirable in the modern world. They were conquered by more centralized powers in the end after all.

Second, would you for a second kid yourself into thinking a system as corporatized, monopolized and coercively regulated as the healthcare industry counts as even slightly representing a 'free market' in even the most threadbare sense of that term?

I never saw him make that assertion.

Income disparity is not, of itself, a problem. The circumstances that cause income disparity are usually the problem; to wit, to produce well, to sell to many customers and thusly be rich is not at all problematic. You've gained as you've given value to others. Many who feed at the state trough are said to do so in 'the public interest.' It's a line at least as old as the arguments for guilds and mercantilism in Louis XIV's day. It's also as tawdry, phony and bankrupt now as it was then. It was scaffolding; makeshift lies for a makeshift idea. Like Marxism without the apocalyptic elements; they just wanted to steal some more.

What are the circumstances that lead to income disparity? What do you consider to be the "state trough"? It's very difficult to assess what you are saying when you don't define any of your ideas.

So, ah, you're going to have to explain to this unwashed barbarian what a better system would do?

What point were you trying to make with this statement?

"There are few things more tiresome than political dogmatics."

You're just as dogmatic, but you don't know what your assumptions are. Prometheus does know what his assumptions are, and is thus willing and, more importantly, able to change them if they're wrong.

Wouldn't you say that his assumption is that no system is perfect in practice? What is your opinion of that assumption? Is it dogmatic? Wouldn't you say looking back on history that it has been proven that no system is without its flaws? What makes you believe that Prometheus is willing to change his assumptions? I've discussed these ideas with him for pages upon pages in other threads, and I've never seen him once question his own ideas or assert anything that contradicted what he originally believed.

The problem with this statement is precisely the theoretical argument advanced previously; socialist systems (and monopolists on the market) cannot calculate, cannot plan, and so the results are always, every single time, disastrous. The Soviet Union proves this point amply.

Didn't he just say that a mostly socialistic system doesn't work? How does that contradict his point that a mostly libertarian system wouldn't?

It's not open to debate? Says who? Says you? Since when did you count to determine what can and cannot be rationally debated? Or are you going for the extremist line on legal positivism; If it's a law, it must be good for us, natural, apodictic, etc.? You're elevating the arbitrary whims of immoral beings to the status of laws of nature. The state is not God, never was, and never will be. It's a 20th century phenomenon to deify the state as it is now, but it has its precedents. You're talking about human beings, no more special, and certainly less moral, than yourself. Power attracts evil men (including Hillary Clinton, who is a very evil man)...

Could you please outline any such claims he made where he suggested that it was wrong to defy the state?

That's the ethic of rapists, thieves and murderers throughout history. You're thinking like a sociopath, and you're hiding it behind this tribal "we" to give it some illusion of authenticity and apparent reality. It's just you standing there demanding something that doesn't belong to you. The nicest you have any right to hope for is a curt 'no' and be glad for that.

I'm sorry, but I can't continue from here. This is just becoming too incoherent and illogical.





Lights added to this post, 2 minutes and 51 seconds later...

Putting aside what the solution may be, I just find it a bit ridiculous that in some cases we want socialized services and in others we don't.

I have just recently finished Michael Moore's film Sicko and am in the process of deciding which half needs to be thrown out and which half is true.

The thing you have to remember is he doesn't lie. He just leaves things out. So you can usually determine what he has selectively left out by doing a little research.

[prometheus]

I'm sorry, but I can't continue from here. This is just becoming too incoherent and illogical.




Makes perfect sense to me. Here take another look at the qoutes.

"You hold wealth by our consent, we can take it from you at any time, you have only one vote in it, so dont piss us off."

That's the ethic of rapists, thieves and murderers throughout history. You're thinking like a sociopath, and you're hiding it behind this tribal "we" to give it some illusion of authenticity and apparent reality. It's just you standing there demanding something that doesn't belong to you. The nicest you have any right to hope for is a curt 'no' and be glad for that.


It's the perfect analogy. You are by yourself walking down a dark alley when a gang of criminals jump out steal your wallet and rape you. We believe this is inherently wrong, being theft, and force. You on the other hand believe this is right since there was a voting majority involved. Hey it wasn't really your property anyways, right (all property belongs to the people right? They obviously needed it more than you. As for the rape; hey, the greater number got some good out of it right, who are you with your one piddly vote to object.

But once again it doesn't matter. Our own government says we won't be able to afford the current brand of quasi-socialized medical we currently have very much longer, let alone increase the amount of the hand outs.

[1OFMANY]

Makes perfect sense to me. Here take another look at the qoutes

Made perfect sense to me as well.

[Lights]

Made perfect sense to me as well.

I honestly don't care anymore. I have made the same arguments multiple times against the same "libertarian" arguments, and nobody has yet to dismiss them. All they do is find different ways to make the same "libertarian" arguments over and over. Ultimately, some people will do what they want and think what they please, and they will ignore anything that doesn't fit into their conception of the world. I admire that people will put their faith into an idea, but I just find it reprehensible when they believe it is the one and only way and they chastise people for thinking differently. I admire the Libertarian ideal, but it isn't any better or worse than any other system.

I'm sorry that people's rights get diminished, but the world isn't perfect. Pro lifers want the right to life respected for fetuses but women want the right to liberty respected so that they can choose to do what they want with their body. If rights were truly inalienable then they wouldn't conflict, but that is just he nature of the world.

People think dangerously when they think in absolutes, and that is a lot of what this thread has been about. People believing that their "libertarianism" is the only way, because it respects what they believe is the one and only way. I find people who think that way to lack the critical thinking skills necessary to challenge what they assume to be true. I've spent a good share of my life challenging everything I believe. I just consider myself very fortunate to have witnessed what I have and through that experience, to understand the world as I do now.

As far as our health care system, I know it is in bad shape, and I know some aspects of socializing it would be better, and some aspects of privatizing it would be better. I know that most people would agree with me in that respect, and so I am content to leave this thread knowing that while my vision isn't "perfect" or "ideal", it is practical and intelligent.

[AgentofGaming]

Since we're sending the same message over and over again.
Maybe we should start a socialized education topic.

Also if some people are so afraid to be "coerced into using social healthcare" what about mixed healthcare?
Although then instead of arguing about whether healthcare should be paid for, there will be an argument why someone should pay for something they don't use.

[yondyr]

yes, why should we?

[evoviiigsr]

After reading some of these posts, being an INTJ doesn't even feel special anymore :( I thought we were supposed to be above the general population in intellect. Socialization just does not work. Socialism does not work. USSR 4 life.

[AgentofGaming]

yes, why should we?
Because we have to share, as people who can't get their minimum standards of living tend to stir trouble. The other alternative is to pay to have them suppressed.

After reading some of these posts, being an INTJ doesn't even feel special anymore :( I thought we were supposed to be above the general population in intellect. Socialization just does not work. Socialism does not work. USSR 4 life.

Indeed, people who like to ignore statistics and believe in overly ideal systems is quite disappointing.

Since when did a personality make a person any smarter than another?

Socialism does not work, neither does lack of government. Compromise is necessary. People are not perfect, therefore laws are required.
People are not motivated without reward, therefore free market is required.