" I love me some NHS. I don't know how people could live with a system like America's and it's even weirder to me when they make out the NHS to be something bad. "
'Cus it's the social communisms, it's a ChiCom invention designed to over throw the workings of the blessed capitalistic free market.
"You need to get it out of your head that to give the government the responsibility to pay for a thing is for the benefit of the poor, this is simply untrue. "
This is the most insightful thing I've read all week. QFT for sure.
I am in agreement with virtually everything Suicrat has said.
" I wonder who honestly believes that the US will ever be able to pay back it's debt. I mean it's 11.4 trillion $. That's almost the GDP from the US in 2008. "
Because our debt is growing much faster than our GDP, and there is no end in sight. Spending is skyrocketting due to underfunded programs, such as social security, medicare, etc...Yet our productive growth is slowing at a fast rate because of the increase consumption and decrease in production. That 11.4 trillion doesn't even come to close to the real deficit because they don't factor in tranfer of payments debts. So how will we pay back an increasing debt? Either 1) Inflate, 2) Increase taxes. Both will be disastrous, and no politician wants to bite the bullet. Politicians will keep delaying the inevitable for personal gains until people stop lending us money. We are fucked. "
It's the same here in Germany. Our goverment lends money to pay back debt. Which results in more debt. Which results in more money beeing lend. In the end the debt is so high that it will be inly possible to pay the interest. When it has come to this we are slaves of the Central Bank. Isn't there something like a Central Bank in the States as well?
" I wonder who honestly believes that the US will ever be able to pay back it's debt. I mean it's 11.4 trillion $. That's almost the GDP from the US in 2008. "
Because our debt is growing much faster than our GDP, and there is no end in sight. Spending is skyrocketting due to underfunded programs, such as social security, medicare, etc...Yet our productive growth is slowing at a fast rate because of the increase consumption and decrease in production. That 11.4 trillion doesn't even come to close to the real deficit because they don't factor in tranfer of payments debts. So how will we pay back an increasing debt? Either 1) Inflate, 2) Increase taxes. Both will be disastrous, and no politician wants to bite the bullet. Politicians will keep delaying the inevitable for personal gains until people stop lending us money. We are fucked. "
It's the same here in Germany. Our goverment lends money to pay back debt. Which results in more debt. Which results in more money beeing lend. In the end the debt is so high that it will be inly possible to pay the interest. When it has come to this we are slaves of the Central Bank. Isn't there something like a Central Bank in the States as well? "
Yea, it's the Federal Reserve. It's basically the downfall of the American economy and it is responsible for our financial crisis :(
But look on the bright side, at least in Germany you aren't spending 3 trillion dollars on an aggressive war. You people learned after WWI.
" I wonder who honestly believes that the US will ever be able to pay back it's debt. I mean it's 11.4 trillion $. That's almost the GDP from the US in 2008. "
Because our debt is growing much faster than our GDP, and there is no end in sight. Spending is skyrocketting due to underfunded programs, such as social security, medicare, etc...Yet our productive growth is slowing at a fast rate because of the increase consumption and decrease in production. That 11.4 trillion doesn't even come to close to the real deficit because they don't factor in tranfer of payments debts. So how will we pay back an increasing debt? Either 1) Inflate, 2) Increase taxes. Both will be disastrous, and no politician wants to bite the bullet. Politicians will keep delaying the inevitable for personal gains until people stop lending us money. We are fucked. "
It's the same here in Germany. Our goverment lends money to pay back debt. Which results in more debt. Which results in more money beeing lend. In the end the debt is so high that it will be inly possible to pay the interest. When it has come to this we are slaves of the Central Bank. Isn't there something like a Central Bank in the States as well? "
Yea, it's the Federal Reserve. It's basically the downfall of the American economy and it is responsible for our financial crisis :( But look on the bright side, at least in Germany you aren't spending 3 trillion dollars on an aggressive war. You people learned after WWI. "
I guess you mean WWII. But you're right. It's needless to say that those 3 trillion dollars could have been spend otherwise or saved in the first place. But Germany spends a lot on it's social system like healthcare, education and a great part on social security. There is a plan to lower the accumullation of national debt to zero by 2012 but I'm not so sure that will happen. I somehow have the feeling that a great part of the economy runs on credit. And credit alone. Is the Federal Reserve owned by your goverment or is it a private bank like the European Central Bank?
Either is fine. If private companies can supply a service AND make huge profits, then a non-profit organisation should be able to at least match it. TBH I think it would make little difference either way - those currently working and paying health insurance would pay tax instead, those currently getting a free ride would continue to get a free ride.
It isn't the NHS that's to blame for the UK's spiralling debts, it's far too many healthy working age people sat on their ass doing nothing all day, and also socializing the risk of private enterprise (ie. the bailouts). When it comes down to it, debt is a far bigger problem for the UK than the US, regardless of percentages - in the worst case scenario, the US has the capability of feeding and clothing itself, the UK doesn't.
Besides, who's ever going to collect on America's debt whilst they have a conventional military that could pretty much take every other conventional military combined? They can hardly afford to stop supplying them either, or their economies would collapse. When it comes down to it, the US will just take whatever it needs anyway - you don't keep that kind of a military just for national defence, you keep it for the endgame.
According to the internets (wiki), as a percentage of total Govt expenditure:
UK Health (NHS): 18% US (Medicare & Medicaid): 23%
UK Debt Interest: 5% US Debt Interest: 8%
UK 'Defence': 5% US """""Defence"""""""": 21% (lol)
If the US didn't spend as much on its military as the entire rest of the world combined, then they'd probably be able to afford top quality healthcare for everybody, no problem. I'm not saying they should do that - because having an awesome military is awesome - only that they could if they wanted to.
@Jimbo: As you said though, the U.S.'s military is not for national defence. They have over 70 foreign military installations. The U.S. government's tax burden is massive, even before you add on more health care spending. The U.S. simply needs to tighten its belt. It won't go to (yet another) war to avoid paying its debt (since that adds to its debt burden), it will simply continue to gradually inflate the currency.
" just quit spending billions of dollars in ways to destroy humanity and we will be fine. "
Not sure if you know this, but a billion is one thousandth of a trillion, so... yeah... Iraq and Afghanistan are drops in the bucket compared to Medicare and Medicaid. "
Drop in the bucket? The true costs of those wars is said to be over $3 trillion now.
@pirate_republic: Oh I don't disagree with you it would be great to have a free health care system in place..... but..... once again... We can't afford it, and if comes at the expense of others who have worked for what they have.... That's not fair at all, and isn't right. If you have money and can afford for god knows what treatment than good for you. Should there be a free health care system that allows for people to go to public hospitals and not get charged a dime? Yes that would be amazing. But private industry? That shouldn't be destroyed.
@Jared: Which is a lot of money, but is approximately 1/11 what Medicare and Medicaid will be costing in the next few decades. Now expand that program to cover the other demographic segments of the U.S. population... yeah, "drop in the bucket" sounds like it kinda makes sense, doesn't it?
@Suicrat: You make it sound like it's somehting bad that the expenses paid to wage war are just a drop in the bucket in relation to the expenses paid to save lives. Anyhow this whole debate here is starting to sound like people who work should live and people who don't should die or look the fuck after themselves. Hell. Why don't just go and spend the money that was used for the military to kill off all unemployed and those who are unable to work for the support of a system that is flawed in the first place.
" What? The UK is spiraling in down the debt spiral too? Isn't there a country left in the world which doesn't? "
Deficit spending is the way of the world. It's why the way of the world is in need of massive overhaul. "
This won't happen as long everyone is nitpicking about if good health should be a given right or if you only have that right when you are able to pay for it.
@SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"?
"2. Private education is widely known to be superior to public education throughout most of the world."
As usual you spew out of a lot of crap. Why is that everytime I see one of these topics you are defending the fucked up politics of the US? Private education is superior over public education, and you know why? Because every country who has real private education is killing public education. You see instead of creating a elite of schools because they cost shitloads, you can also just tax that money and improve all schools. So is private education actually superior, or is it just superior because it kills public education? The only difference between private and public is money, socialism removes that issue so that there is no issue of money, therefor all schools would be just as good, or atleast to a certain degree (there is as always a difference in quality, but you can't do shit about that)
"Adding taxes will merely harm the poor even more. Even if they don't pay it directly. Adding arbitrary costs to a thing (in the case of what you're talking about, everything) only increases the costs."
And again you have no clue on what socialism is about, surprise surprise... Socialism looks at what people need to live well enough to afford the usual things and a little more so that no one has to live in poverty, now they wouldn't tax the poor even more, infact that would lower their taxes and increase the taxes on the rich, therefor the poor would only gain and wouldn't be harmed.
Seriously get it through your head, the goal of socialism is to make things more equal, that no one has to poor, everyone would be able to buy food, pay the rent, send their kids off to college etc. Anything that would make live financially worse for poor people has absolutely nothing to do at all with socialism.
The Netherlands is and will always be 1 of the richest country in the world, per head we have more money then almost any country, including the US, you really should stop thinking that right wing crap will bring salvation to all those countries, because it won't, ofcourse no system is perfect, socialism is the next best thing, it gives people a proper income that they can live off, it gives everyone health care, anyone can go to a college or university and all this while greedy people can still make millions/billions.
With a free market economy it's as simple as not buying insurance from the shitty companies. If people aren't insured it should be their problem, not mine through taxes. I'm a Canadian, by the way, and our healthcare isn't all it's cracked up to be (Long ass waiting periods, doctors aren't happy with their wages). Its not "free healthcare" by any stretch. It probably ends up costing me more than I like to think about and it means I'm responsible for people I don't know or give a shit about. Wanting socialism is really just an admission of laziness and wanting others to take care of you. Socialists make themselves out to be altruistic and noble, but they are really as selfish as any capitalist, they just aren't willing to work hard to fulfill their selfish desires. Please don't quote me then say "BUSH WAS A CAPITALIST LOOK WHERE WE ARE NOW" because Bush spent tax money only the way a socialist douche could. Secondly, he was retarded, but I guess that's a tired and basically unnecessary thing to say.
Just thought I'd point out - The U.S. spends around 16% of its GDP on healthcare, and leaves millions of Americans without healthcare. The U.K. spends around 8% of its GDP on the NHS, which offers total coverage, and in many areas performs better than american healthcare. It's not perfect, by any means, but to suggest that American healthcare as it is is more efficient or effective than socialised healthcare strikes me as a bit silly.
" @SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"? "
I will read it. But you have already read it. What solution does it have for people who are dieing and are in need for medical treatment?
"2. Private education is widely known to be superior to public education throughout most of the world."
As usual you spew out of a lot of crap. Why is that everytime I see one of these topics you are defending the fucked up politics of the US? Private education is superior over public education, and you know why? Because every country who has real private education is killing public education. You see instead of creating a elite of schools because they cost shitloads, you can also just tax that money and improve all schools. So is private education actually superior, or is it just superior because it kills public education? The only difference between private and public is money, socialism removes that issue so that there is no issue of money, therefor all schools would be just as good, or atleast to a certain degree (there is as always a difference in quality, but you can't do shit about that) "Adding taxes will merely harm the poor even more. Even if they don't pay it directly. Adding arbitrary costs to a thing (in the case of what you're talking about, everything) only increases the costs." And again you have no clue on what socialism is about, surprise surprise... Socialism looks at what people need to live well enough to afford the usual things and a little more so that no one has to live in poverty, now they wouldn't tax the poor even more, infact that would lower their taxes and increase the taxes on the rich, therefor the poor would only gain and wouldn't be harmed. Seriously get it through your head, the goal of socialism is to make things more equal, that no one has to poor, everyone would be able to buy food, pay the rent, send their kids off to college etc. Anything that would make live financially worse for poor people has absolutely nothing to do at all with socialism. The Netherlands is and will always be 1 of the richest country in the world, per head we have more money then almost any country, including the US, you really should stop thinking that right wing crap will bring salvation to all those countries, because it won't, ofcourse no system is perfect, socialism is the next best thing, it gives people a proper income that they can live off, it gives everyone health care, anyone can go to a college or university and all this while greedy people can still make millions/billions. "
I AM NOT DEFENDING THE POLITICS OF THE U.S.! FASCISM IS JUST AS BAD AS SOCIALISM!
And no, not every private school is just for the wealthy, there are private schools in the slums of urban centres in Brazil, India, China, and all over the developing world, and they provide education to the poor.
I live in Canada, in the riding of the leader of the New Democratic Party. I know a great deal about what democratic socialism entails. As for taxing the rich to help the poor. There is no such thing as a corporate tax. Any tax a government levies on a company, the company then passes on to the consumer. I know what the ideals of socialism are, I just know they fail to square with reality. Inflation hurts purchasing power, the poor are the most sensitive to fluxuations in purchasing power. Until you address this point, none of your idle platitudes about socialism will be worth a lick of shit.
As for the Netherlands, your economy survives on the back of Shell, the most rapacious corporation in the history of mankind, so if you're going to defend the Netherlands and its ability to feed and clothe its poor, then you need to address this issue as well.
I AM NOT A RIGHT-WINGER, I AM A CAPITALIST! CAPITALISTS ARE CENTRISTS.
" @SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"? "
I will read it. But you have already read it. What solution does it have for people who are dieing and are in need for medical treatment? "
It's an essay pointing out the fallacy behind thinking you improve the overall lot of a group of people by taking from one group to give to another group.
As for medical treatment, I said it earlier in this thread, and I will say it again. I had surgery on my ankle this year, paid for by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. A government-run insurance plan for which I will be perpetually in debt. No matter how much I produce, no matter how wealthy I become, I will always have to give them a portion of my wealth. I would much rather have been given the option to take out a loan, and eventually be free of that debt burden.
" With a free market economy it's as simple as not buying insurance from the shitty companies. If people aren't insured it should be their problem, not mine through taxes. I'm a Canadian, by the way, and our healthcare isn't all it's cracked up to be (Long ass waiting periods, doctors aren't happy with their wages). Its not "free healthcare" by any stretch. It probably ends up costing me more than I like to think about and it means I'm responsible for people I don't know or give a shit about. Wanting socialism is really just an admission of laziness and wanting others to take care of you. Socialists make themselves out to be altruistic and noble, but they are really as selfish as any capitalist, they just aren't willing to work hard to fulfill their selfish desires. Please don't quote me then say "BUSH WAS A CAPITALIST LOOK WHERE WE ARE NOW" because Bush spent tax money only the way a socialist douche could. Secondly, he was retarded, but I guess that's a tired and basically unnecessary thing to say. "
Free market economies work when it comes to non essential goods such as iPods and trendy clothes but when it comes to the preservation of someones life do you really think that anyone should be left out of life preserving healthcare treatment because they didn't think ahead? Is that a deadly sin in your book that if you either don't seek or get bad insurance than you deserve to die?? It's not like you get a second chance with your insurance provider either as soon as you develop a condition you are locked in to their insurance because do to the rules of preexisting conditions you can't get that better coverage and furthermore they can raise your rates as they choose without increasing the variety of conditions they cover. So in conclusion a free market economy may force people to make healthcare better but it also has too many casualties along the way.
" With a free market economy it's as simple as not buying insurance from the shitty companies. If people aren't insured it should be their problem, not mine through taxes. I'm a Canadian, by the way, and our healthcare isn't all it's cracked up to be (Long ass waiting periods, doctors aren't happy with their wages). Its not "free healthcare" by any stretch. It probably ends up costing me more than I like to think about and it means I'm responsible for people I don't know or give a shit about. Wanting socialism is really just an admission of laziness and wanting others to take care of you. Socialists make themselves out to be altruistic and noble, but they are really as selfish as any capitalist, they just aren't willing to work hard to fulfill their selfish desires. Please don't quote me then say "BUSH WAS A CAPITALIST LOOK WHERE WE ARE NOW" because Bush spent tax money only the way a socialist douche could. Secondly, he was retarded, but I guess that's a tired and basically unnecessary thing to say. "
Free market economies work when it comes to non essential goods such as iPods and trendy clothes but when it comes to the preservation of someones life do you really think that anyone should be left out of life preserving healthcare treatment because they didn't think ahead? Is that a deadly sin in your book that if you either don't seek or get bad insurance than you deserve to die?? It's not like you get a second chance with your insurance provider either as soon as you develop a condition you are locked in to their insurance because do to the rules of preexisting conditions you can't get that better coverage and furthermore they can raise your rates as they choose without increasing the variety of conditions they cover. So in conclusion a free market economy may force people to make healthcare better but it also has too many casualties along the way. "
Capitalists can raise strawmen too, is it better to allow someone to die because your government couldn't tax enough wealth from enough people to pay for his heart surgery? Why does this part of the argument mean nothing? "If a poor man dies, it's a tragedy." "If a rich man dies, it's okay." NO, IT'S A TRAGEDY IF A MAN DIES, REGARDLESS OF HIS STATION IN LIFE.
By the way, it needs to be stressed for all to see, because I think people are getting sidetracked here. Production is the source of all weatlh and all goods. Redistribution, taxation, and theft has never created anything ever, and will never create anything ever. But it is best to let the producer dispose of his ability to produce as he sees fit, than to attach redistribution, taxation, and theft on top of it.
" @SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"? "
I will read it. But you have already read it. What solution does it have for people who are dieing and are in need for medical treatment? "
It's an essay pointing out the fallacy behind thinking you improve the overall lot of a group of people by taking from one group to give to another group. As for medical treatment, I said it earlier in this thread, and I will say it again. I had surgery on my ankle this year, paid for by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. A government-run insurance plan for which I will be perpetually in debt. No matter how much I produce, no matter how wealthy I become, I will always have to give them a portion of my wealth. I would much rather have been given the option to take out a loan, and eventually be free of that debt burden. "
So don't the workers who make your lifestyle possible deserve to at least be free of disease? Most people who don't have health insurance have jobs so I don't follow your logic unless you want the creation of a extreme class based society wherein the elite get the best healthcare in the world and the poor all squalor in disease.
@Hats: Uhh, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but all entities are subject to revenue/expenditure balances. If the monopoly (i.e., a government) service provider is under-funded, then everyone suffers, whereas if one of many service providers fails to manage its books properly, it is subject to takeover by a more efficient company.
Why do people think that governments are immune to reality? Has no one read any of the articles I posted? THE U.S. IS 34 TRILLION DOLLARS UNDERFUNDED IN ITS HEALTHCARE PROGRAM ALREADY!
@Suicrat: You do know that capitalism can't possibly be the future for human developement. Because it advertises scarcity which hinders the advancement of society as a whole. I hope you know that.
" @SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"? "
I will read it. But you have already read it. What solution does it have for people who are dieing and are in need for medical treatment? "
It's an essay pointing out the fallacy behind thinking you improve the overall lot of a group of people by taking from one group to give to another group. As for medical treatment, I said it earlier in this thread, and I will say it again. I had surgery on my ankle this year, paid for by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. A government-run insurance plan for which I will be perpetually in debt. No matter how much I produce, no matter how wealthy I become, I will always have to give them a portion of my wealth. I would much rather have been given the option to take out a loan, and eventually be free of that debt burden. "
So don't the workers who make your lifestyle possible deserve to at least be free of disease? Most people who don't have health insurance have jobs so I don't follow your logic unless you want the creation of a extreme class based society wherein the elite get the best healthcare in the world and the poor all squalor in disease. "
If they provide me with value, then they should be free to dispose of that value. I don't see where you get the notion that privatizing American healthcare (remember, it's already heavily manipulated by the government) would be harmful to the poor. Free markets drive costs down, not the other way around. Just look at the computer industry if you don't believe me.
" @Suicrat: You do know that capitalism can't possibly be the future for human developement. Because it advertises scarcity which hinders the advancement of society as a whole. I hope you know that. "
I know that production for profit has created all of the wealth in the world today.
Capitalism advertises nothing in particular. Capitalism is about voluntary, mutually-beneficial commerce. If both parties don't benefit, then one of the parties does not participate. There is no scarcity to the one true human resource, the human mind. It has produced all of the values we live off of today. To free these minds from arbitrary intervention by coercive forces would be beneficial to mankind as a whole (not that I see mankind as a whole, mind you.)
@Suicrat: I don't follow your logic here the point of a government healthcare system is to gaurantee healthcare for everyone including rich people. Furthermore what does healthcare have to do with production, it produces nothing, it is only the maintaining of people's health so that they can then go and produce wealth. The government pays for the maintaining of our roads and pipes why not our bodies; they could all be considered infastructure that needs to be maintained. And another thing, honestly if a rich man wants to pay for another month of health he will always be able to. What I'm more concerned about is the fate of the population of country instead of the preservation of private rights and disparity in quality of life.
I am bewildered that anyone can argue against a health service which is free (nothing to pay at the point of delivery, of course there are taxes to pay) to all citizens of America. How can America claim to be civilised when Millions of it's citizens have no means of obtaining fundamental health care without the burden of large payments.
People in Europe get taxed a lot than Americans but we also have a higher standards of living. I believe that we in Britain get a lot for the small amount of tax each person have to pay in regards to the NHS. All Britons have a myriad of health services available to them without having to worry about payments. It is amazing the number of Americans that claim to be Christians yet they are unwilling to allow their neighbours to have access to a fundamental right such as good quality and comprehensive health care. What God do these people worship ?
" @SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"? "
I will read it. But you have already read it. What solution does it have for people who are dieing and are in need for medical treatment? "
It's an essay pointing out the fallacy behind thinking you improve the overall lot of a group of people by taking from one group to give to another group. As for medical treatment, I said it earlier in this thread, and I will say it again. I had surgery on my ankle this year, paid for by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. A government-run insurance plan for which I will be perpetually in debt. No matter how much I produce, no matter how wealthy I become, I will always have to give them a portion of my wealth. I would much rather have been given the option to take out a loan, and eventually be free of that debt burden. "
So don't the workers who make your lifestyle possible deserve to at least be free of disease? Most people who don't have health insurance have jobs so I don't follow your logic unless you want the creation of a extreme class based society wherein the elite get the best healthcare in the world and the poor all squalor in disease. "
If they provide me with value, then they should be free to dispose of that value. I don't see where you get the notion that privatizing American healthcare (remember, it's already heavily manipulated by the government) would be harmful to the poor. Free markets drive costs down, not the other way around. Just look at the computer industry if you don't believe me. "
once again, free markets have consequences, computers are not people!!!! You may not think twice about paying too much for a crappy computer but you may die from paying for crappy healthcare.
" @Hats: Uhh, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but all entities are subject to revenue/expenditure balances. If the monopoly (i.e., a government) service provider is under-funded, then everyone suffers, whereas if one of many service providers fails to manage its books properly, it is subject to takeover by a more efficient company. Why do people think that governments are immune to reality? Has no one read any of the articles I posted? THE U.S. IS 34 TRILLION DOLLARS UNDERFUNDED IN ITS HEALTHCARE PROGRAM ALREADY! "
I know very little about the health care in the US as I don't live there but the theory that private business will save them is abusurd this whole I can pay fuck those who cant afford it good luck in your utopa of free market
" @Hats: Uhh, I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but all entities are subject to revenue/expenditure balances. If the monopoly (i.e., a government) service provider is under-funded, then everyone suffers, whereas if one of many service providers fails to manage its books properly, it is subject to takeover by a more efficient company. Why do people think that governments are immune to reality? Has no one read any of the articles I posted? THE U.S. IS 34 TRILLION DOLLARS UNDERFUNDED IN ITS HEALTHCARE PROGRAM ALREADY! "
I know very little about the health care in the US as I don't live there but the theory that private business will save them is abusurd this whole I can pay fuck those who cant afford it good luck in your utopa or free market "
yeah furthermore 34 trillion?!?!??! You're a liar! and a bad one at that. Whatever article your posted must have been exposed to the munipulation of some serious hardcore capitalist who want to scare the crap out of poor people.
Socialised healthcare is the last thing America needs right now. Our goverment is trillions of dollars in debt and the last thing we need is the goverment taking control of our healthcare. Socialised healthcare will drive insurance companies going out of buissnes, leading to the hondreds of thouthands of people who work for them losing there jobs. And ChopperDave47, socialism is evil.
" @Suicrat: I don't follow your logic here the point of a government healthcare system is to gaurantee healthcare for everyone including rich people. Furthermore what does healthcare have to do with production, it produces nothing, it is only the maintaining of people's health so that they can then go and produce wealth. The government pays for the maintaining of our roads and pipes why not our bodies; they could all be considered infastructure that needs to be maintained. And another thing, honestly if a rich man wants to pay for another month of health he will always be able to. What I'm more concerned about is the fate of the population of country instead of the preservation of private rights and disparity in quality of life. "
Healthcare has nothing to do with production? Are you kidding me? You really didn't just say that, did you? You don't really believe that, do you? Every medicine, every device, every treatment had to be produced in order for it to exist, it didn't just pop into existence out of thin air.
As for governments taking wealth to pay for a monopoly on roads and plumbing, I do not endorse it. We have a tragedy of the commons in water distribution and pollution, and property delineation (and proper enforcement) would have prevented these problems. Man is not a means to an end be disposed of by his government. Man is his own ends.
If you're concerned about the fate of the population of your country, you should be demanding more privatization, less government interference, and more government enforcement of their core responsibilities (i.e, force and fraud.) Your government will be the biggest drain on quality of life in the coming decades.
Governments do not create wealth, they cannot increase wealth. Only producers can do these things.
And once again, if you don't believe me that freedom is superior to coercion, look at the historical examples: Hong Kong compared to China. West Germany compared to East Germany. China during the 80s compared to China during the 60s. The computer industry versus the healthcare industry. Energy production during the 19th century compared to today. The list goes on and on. Liberalizing markets helps the rich, but it also helps the poor. Whereas taxation and inflation hurts the rich and the poor equally.
" @Suicrat: I don't follow your logic here the point of a government healthcare system is to gaurantee healthcare for everyone including rich people. Furthermore what does healthcare have to do with production, it produces nothing, it is only the maintaining of people's health so that they can then go and produce wealth. The government pays for the maintaining of our roads and pipes why not our bodies; they could all be considered infastructure that needs to be maintained. And another thing, honestly if a rich man wants to pay for another month of health he will always be able to. What I'm more concerned about is the fate of the population of country instead of the preservation of private rights and disparity in quality of life. "
Healthcare has nothing to do with production? Are you kidding me? You really didn't just say that, did you? You don't really believe that, do you? Every medicine, every device, every treatment had to be produced in order for it to exist, it didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. As for governments taking wealth to pay for a monopoly on roads and plumbing, I do not endorse it. We have a tragedy of the commons in water distribution and pollution, and property delineation (and proper enforcement) would have prevented these problems. Man is not a means to an end be disposed of by his government. Man is his own ends. If you're concerned about the fate of the population of your country, you should be demanding more privatization, less government interference, and more government enforcement of their core responsibilities (i.e, force and fraud.) Your government will be the biggest drain on quality of life in the coming decades. Governments do not create wealth, they cannot increase wealth. Only producers can do these things. And once again, if you don't believe me that freedom is superior to coercion, look at the historical examples: Hong Kong compared to China. West Germany compared to East Germany. China during the 80s compared to China during the 60s. The computer industry versus the healthcare industry. Energy production during the 19th century compared to today. The list goes on and on. Liberalizing markets helps the rich, but it also helps the poor. Whereas taxation and inflation hurts the rich and the poor equally. "
whatever healthcare has elements which involve production but the divi-ing up of healthcare should not be based on how much you can pay. That is fundementally what I'm saying and any other argument is insane. The myth of the free market has been proven to ruin economies and steal rights from citizens time and time again so I would please urge you to knock all that rich man's propaganda out of your head before you go killing another working class person.
" @SinGulaR: My point was more that all of these methods are wastes of effort, time, and lives. As for the government stealing to "save lives", might I encourage you to read an essay called "That Which is Seen and That Which is Not Seen"? "
I will read it. But you have already read it. What solution does it have for people who are dieing and are in need for medical treatment? "
It's an essay pointing out the fallacy behind thinking you improve the overall lot of a group of people by taking from one group to give to another group. As for medical treatment, I said it earlier in this thread, and I will say it again. I had surgery on my ankle this year, paid for by the Ontario Health Insurance Plan. A government-run insurance plan for which I will be perpetually in debt. No matter how much I produce, no matter how wealthy I become, I will always have to give them a portion of my wealth. I would much rather have been given the option to take out a loan, and eventually be free of that debt burden. "
So don't the workers who make your lifestyle possible deserve to at least be free of disease? Most people who don't have health insurance have jobs so I don't follow your logic unless you want the creation of a extreme class based society wherein the elite get the best healthcare in the world and the poor all squalor in disease. "
If they provide me with value, then they should be free to dispose of that value. I don't see where you get the notion that privatizing American healthcare (remember, it's already heavily manipulated by the government) would be harmful to the poor. Free markets drive costs down, not the other way around. Just look at the computer industry if you don't believe me. "
I work in the computer industry. I know how competition lowers prices but also quality. Notebooks beeing sold with recycled parts so they can go with a cheaper price tag. They have predefined failure points which break after a given time so the customer has to buy a replacement and so on. Now imagine a privatised healthcare system like this. Companys trying to save expenses everywhere. Patients beeing handled as customers, not as patients. When was the last time you went somewhere as a customer and got service without having enough money to pay for it? Here in Germany we already have a two class society concerning medical insurance. There is insurance that is controlled and, in case you can't pay for it on your own, paid for by the goverment and private insurance. If you have private insurance you get better service, treatment and are generally treated like a better person. This is what your so beloved capitalism is doing to the mind of people.
@Postromo said:
"video games "
Since this is the "Off Topic" part of the forums, video games should least be expected here.
" As for governments taking wealth to pay for a monopoly on roads and plumbing, I do not endorse it. We have a tragedy of the commons in water distribution and pollution, and property delineation (and proper enforcement) would have prevented these problems. Man is not a means to an end be disposed of by his government. Man is his own ends."
I know the place your taking about it exists its a magical place where there is no tax there is only freedom its called the 3rd world who do you think would have built the roads in the 1st place or the water mains telephone lines
" whatever healthcare has elements which involve production but the divi-ing up of healthcare should not be based on how much you can pay. That is fundementally what I'm saying and any other argument is insane. The myth of the free market has been proven to ruin economies and steal rights from citizens time and time again so I would please urge you to knock all that rich man's propaganda out of your head before you go killing another working class person. "
If you can't pay for something that you value, you can borrow the money to pay for it. This already happens with government provided healthcare. If they can't afford it THEY borrow the money which they pay back through taxation and inflation. A process to which the poor are the most sensitive.
Totally free markets have never existed. Relative freedom has only ever existed, and as I mentioned, the places and markets with a greater degree of relative freedom have fared far better (especially in the standard of living of the poor) than places and markets with a lesser degree of relative freedom. I have cited historical examples, and I urge you to research them.
It is not my fault you've been brainwashed against self-confidence and your ability to use your mind to obtain your goals, but to accuse me of being a victim of brainwashing would be flatly incorrect.
" @Suicrat: You do know that capitalism can't possibly be the future for human developement. Because it advertises scarcity which hinders the advancement of society as a whole. I hope you know that. "
I know that production for profit has created all of the wealth in the world today. Capitalism advertises nothing in particular. Capitalism is about voluntary, mutually-beneficial commerce. If both parties don't benefit, then one of the parties does not participate. There is no scarcity to the one true human resource, the human mind. It has produced all of the values we live off of today. To free these minds from arbitrary intervention by coercive forces would be beneficial to mankind as a whole (not that I see mankind as a whole, mind you.) "
You don't see mankind as a whole? That implies that some parts of mankind are more worth then others. Isn't that fascism?
" @Suicrat: You do know that capitalism can't possibly be the future for human developement. Because it advertises scarcity which hinders the advancement of society as a whole. I hope you know that. "
I know that production for profit has created all of the wealth in the world today. Capitalism advertises nothing in particular. Capitalism is about voluntary, mutually-beneficial commerce. If both parties don't benefit, then one of the parties does not participate. There is no scarcity to the one true human resource, the human mind. It has produced all of the values we live off of today. To free these minds from arbitrary intervention by coercive forces would be beneficial to mankind as a whole (not that I see mankind as a whole, mind you.) "
You don't see mankind as a whole? That implies that some parts of mankind are more worth then others. Isn't that fascism? "
No, that does not imply that at all. You inferred that. Inference and implication are not the same thing.
I see humanity as composed of individuals, this is a fact of reality, not an opinion.
" @ryanwho: No that's wrong it's actually if you make 150k which is upper middle class pay. And my family makes 140k and they are even telling my family we might have to pay the taxes for this bullshit program. "
I just don't know what to say. What do you say to someone who considers healthcare a "bullshit program"? I guess you say "spend your money wisely, because if you ever end up poor, you know what people who make 6+ figures think of you."
Log in to comment