|
On January 06 2011 16:27 Scruffy wrote:
I think that the free market can allocate money better than the government, plain and simple.
In most cases the free market can allocate resources better than a government. However there are some situations where government can out perform the private sector.
One example of this is health care. The government run health care systems throughout the world perform much more efficiently than the US privately run system.
Just compare health care costs in the US to any other country in the world:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.png
HMO and pharmaceutical companies are using the extra money to generate large profits for themselves.
In the long run, the US could save itself lots of money by having everyone pay a tax for health care, and then having health care provided by the government to everyone. The UK and Australia both provide free health care and they both run at around 9% of GDP. The US is up near 15% and growing.
This is why I don't understand why people are against health care reforms. Not only would they help people who can't afford health insurance, but they would reduce overall spending in the long run.
|
On January 06 2011 15:09 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
You do have a good point regarding the tea party, and I believe it is easy to draw your conclusions given a lack of understanding of proper cause and effect.
Nah, wrong again. I suppose if you're very generous in where you draw the line between libertarian protesting and Tea Party activism you could interpret the funding as an effect of the movement. However, the facts don't seem to bear that out.
Here's what we know - following Rick Santelli's CNBC rant against 'subsidizing losers' mortgages' in which he called for a 'Chicago tea-party'...
"...the movement was first inspired to coalesce under the collective banner of "Tea Party". By the next day, guests on Fox News had already begun to mention this new "Tea Party."
That seems pretty conclusive to me. Disparate libertarian movements all of a sudden had a name and national publicity through FOX and sympathetic punditry - you could call them the precursors of the tea-party movement, but the day after they became the Tea Party they had partisan institutional backing stronger than any other protest group in America. Hell, even the organization's name was jacked from a talking head's rant on CNBC. That doesn't lend credibility to the grassroots nature of an organization if you ask me.
You have backpedaled admirably, and I believe it is conscionable to do so when you have no knowledge on the topic.
In most cases the free market can allocate resources better than a government.
This is true in most cases where profit motive leads business to act in ways that do not oppose consumer interests. When it doesn't (healthcare, social / economic policy, most inelastic goods), government seems to do a much better job.
You're absolutely correct about HMO's bilking the populace - it's a shame our politicians are funded in large part by their donations, otherwise they might stop propagating the myth that we have "the BEST healthcare system in the WORLD (cuz we're 'MURRICA!!)" and we might start cleaning this mess up.
|
On January 06 2011 17:18 DTrain wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 16:27 Scruffy wrote:
I think that the free market can allocate money better than the government, plain and simple.
In most cases the free market can allocate resources better than a government. However there are some situations where government can out perform the private sector. One example of this is health care. The government run health care systems throughout the world perform much more efficiently than the US privately run system. Just compare health care costs in the US to any other country in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.pngHMO and pharmaceutical companies are using the extra money to generate large profits for themselves. In the long run, the US could save itself lots of money by having everyone pay a tax for health care, and then having health care provided by the government to everyone. The UK and Australia both provide free health care and they both run at around 9% of GDP. The US is up near 15% and growing. This is why I don't understand why people are against health care reforms. Not only would they help people who can't afford health insurance, but they would reduce overall spending in the long run.
Well unfortunately, my friend, my government isn't very good at anything. I would rather pay MORE for better healthcare than less for shitty. They blew the healthcare problem up so people would be worried. I think they are using like 10 years of taxes to pay for 7 years of spending.
How can a govt bureaucracy be more efficient than a competitive business? It can't. And the "outrageous" profit margins are less than 5 percent.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/03/08/story5.html
Seriously? The reason the US health care costs are so high is because we eat too much and they won't let us buy insurance across state lines. Also, many insurance companies pay for cancer treatments and the like while they are denied in places like the UK.
|
On January 06 2011 17:45 Scruffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 17:18 DTrain wrote:On January 06 2011 16:27 Scruffy wrote:
I think that the free market can allocate money better than the government, plain and simple.
In most cases the free market can allocate resources better than a government. However there are some situations where government can out perform the private sector. One example of this is health care. The government run health care systems throughout the world perform much more efficiently than the US privately run system. Just compare health care costs in the US to any other country in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.pngHMO and pharmaceutical companies are using the extra money to generate large profits for themselves. In the long run, the US could save itself lots of money by having everyone pay a tax for health care, and then having health care provided by the government to everyone. The UK and Australia both provide free health care and they both run at around 9% of GDP. The US is up near 15% and growing. This is why I don't understand why people are against health care reforms. Not only would they help people who can't afford health insurance, but they would reduce overall spending in the long run. Well unfortunately, my friend, my government isn't very good at anything. I would rather pay MORE for better healthcare than less for shitty. They blew the healthcare problem up so people would be worried. I think they are using like 10 years of taxes to pay for 7 years of spending. How can a govt bureaucracy be more efficient than a competitive business? It can't. And the "outrageous" profit margins are less than 5 percent. http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/stories/2010/03/08/story5.htmlSeriously? The reason the US health care costs are so high is because we eat too much and they won't let us buy insurance across state lines. Also, many insurance companies pay for cancer treatments and the like while they are denied in places like the UK.
In addition, healthcare costs are massively bloated by outrageous lawsuit practices. Malpractice insurance is ridiculously expensive, and doctors have to spend tons of money on needless tests to cover their asses. What we need is malpractice reform, which allows doctors to do their damn job without paying 200k a year in insurance.
The problem is that the same malpractice lawyers who are raking in millions over these claims are the guys who are lobbying to congress to avoid new laws that would put them out of a job so to speak.
That is the reason the US healthcare system is "broken".
It is still the best healthcare system in the world though. The quality of care, the quality of medication, the variety of doctors and medicines available, and of course the wait times for surgeries and procedures are phenomenal and unobtainable through a gov't health care system.
Sure, there are unethical practices by insurance companies every now and then. However, that's when you (or your employer) switches to a new company. Our coverage shifts all the time. That's the beauty of capitalism. With a gov't system you're stuck with bad healthcare if it's bad.
|
On January 06 2011 16:27 Scruffy wrote:
I'm just praying everyone with an "R" by their name doesn't blow it this time. Seems like we have a younger/more libertarian leaning group than in year's past.
I'm counting on people like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Allen West, etc. to do what they promised. I will fight them tooth and nail if they don't.
There are a few new names, yes, but a much, much longer list of names of old-time Republicans who'll have all the say. The people who're still calling the shots in the GOP are the same people that've been running the party since Reagan. The rhetoric isn't any bit different, only a little more trumped up at times.
If you really want to understand right-wing hypocrisy, do two things. One, look at a timeline of the national debt. Two, look at a a brief history of the U.S. progressive income tax.
Republicans' "smaller government" philosophy has amounted to nothing more than a simple tax-cut giveaway for decades now. Our national debt has been ballooning since the Reagan years when he just about cut taxes in half. The national debt accrues interest, making payment of that interest alone one of our government's biggest yearly expenditures - hundreds of billions a year is seriously wasted on what is essentially an out-of-control credit card bill.
A few young Republicans aren't going to do much. In fact, if they're acquainted with their office at all and still call themselves a party Republican, sorry, but your faith is already certainly misfounded.
The Democrats can at least point to the Clinton administration and claim to have some sense of actual fiscal responsibility, however slight. They might not be into cutting all the government programs you don't like (which programs are those, anyways?) but they will at least, occasionally, pay for them.
|
On January 06 2011 17:58 Leporello wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 16:27 Scruffy wrote:
I'm just praying everyone with an "R" by their name doesn't blow it this time. Seems like we have a younger/more libertarian leaning group than in year's past.
I'm counting on people like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Allen West, etc. to do what they promised. I will fight them tooth and nail if they don't. There are a few new names, yes, but a much, much longer list of names of old-time Republicans who'll have all the say. The people who're still calling the shots in the GOP are the same people that've been running the party since Reagan. The rhetoric isn't any bit different, only a little more trumped up at times. If you really want to understand right-wing hypocrisy, do two things. One, look at a timeline of the national debt. Two, look at a a brief history of the U.S. progressive income tax. Republicans' "smaller government" philosophy has amounted to nothing more than a simple tax-cut giveaway for decades now. Our national debt has been ballooning since the Reagan years when he just about cut taxes in half. The national debt accrues interest, making payment of that interest alone one of our government's biggest yearly expenditures - hundreds of billions a year is seriously wasted on what is essentially an out-of-control credit card bill. A few young Republicans aren't going to do much. In fact, if they're acquainted with their office at all and still call themselves a party Republican, sorry, but your faith is already certainly misfounded. The Democrats can at least point to the Clinton administration and claim to have some sense of actual fiscal responsibility, however slight. They might not be into cutting all the government programs you don't like (which programs are those, anyways?) but they will at least, occasionally, pay for them.
You should really read up on your facts about deficits and the national debt.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/ten-myths-about-budget-deficits-and-debt
Liberals love to point to the past to things that are currently irrelevant to cover all of their real failures. I don't buy the lies. I'm sorry. I mean you can blame Bush all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama and Congress spent 1 trillion to increase the unemployment rate. When it drops, its usually because people are leaving the workforce (talking about past 2 years or so).
My faith is not misfounded OR misguided. It is fact. The truth is the liberals' natural enemy.
|
On January 06 2011 16:27 Scruffy wrote:
To the guy who said the Democrat "era" was only two years, they were in control of Congress since 2006.
Obviously he was not including 2006 because Bush was still in office. To use "Democrat era" in this context at all is ridiculous given the short time span. It would at least make a little more sense to only use it in reference to the past two years, which is what he seemed to be alluding to.
I think that the free market can allocate money better than the government, plain and simple.
Yes, very plain and very simple.
If government spending creates jobs, then what happened with the stimulus? I know you will argue "pulled us back from the brink blah blah blah", but honestly, the bill was just a trillion dollar pork bill. I still don't think they have spent most of it. Wonder why that is, huh.
That "blah blah blah" is the prevailing view of economists, perhaps you should give it some thought. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that last sentence. It reeks of the type of paranoia seen on the Glenn Beck program. The bill was designed to be implemented over time and not all at once immediately. If you have some strange suspicion regarding that aspect then state it.
Idk, the liberal arguments for most things don't compute with my brain for some reason. It seems that they all want "class warfare" and "poor vs. rich" mentalities about everything.
It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion when people like you simply copy paste talking points that have been repeated a million times. Specifically cite what liberals or liberal arguments you're referring to and what is wrong with them.
I honestly don't want "rich" people to be taxed more. I work for a small business run by two older guys (construction company), and you think taxing them more will help them hire more and expand??
Who stated that it would? You're arguing with no one. Of course it would not create more jobs. However it would go a very long way in helping to pay off the debt which the right wing is all of the sudden so concerned about.
What makes you so certain that a tax cut for those owners would create jobs? I wish that "trickle down effect" played out in reality, it certainly didn't during the eight years in which it was implemented under Bush.
Helping the poor is another issue for me. Why should the government do it?
Altruism? Compassion? Souls?
Do you really think African-American's poverty demographics have shifted in the past 50 years? They have probably gotten worse. Its almost like the Dems want to tell them (although more covertly, obviously) "Hey, guess what guys, vote us in, and we will pay you to not work!" Pretty sweet deal if you can get it I guess.
I can't quite decide: is this vague racism or just plain racism? Stating that black people vote for Democrats so that they can get payed while just sitting around... you are vile.
So basically, what I'm saying is....make government smaller. The people will make things right (if we can/deserve to), not the government.
What utter nonsense. If the federal government is weakened power will not be shifted to the general public. It will be shifted to corporations.
I'm counting on people like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Allen West, etc. to do what they promised. I will fight them tooth and nail if they don't.
Paul Ryan was the deciding vote for Medicare Part D, so obviously he is not libertarian. Allen West is an absolute mad man who has espoused ridiculous views, such as the idea that Obama shouldn't take security precautions when flying into Afghanistan(a type of precaution that every single President has taken). To hang your hopes on those men is just absurd.
|
On January 06 2011 17:53 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is still the best healthcare system in the world though. The quality of care, the quality of medication, the variety of doctors and medicines available, and of course the wait times for surgeries and procedures are phenomenal and unobtainable through a gov't health care system.
The theoretically best Healthcare that money can buy has about as much to do with a good Healthcare system as invading Iraq to secure peace or Obama with socialism (well, you won't get the last one probably).
Wow... Your so clueless on the materia, it really hurts to read your bullshit.
About every damn statistic on the planet claims that your Healthcare system is fucking expensive and bad at the same time (read: inefficient).
Your making up points on the go witheout any facts... my god.
Your a moron.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On January 06 2011 18:59 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 17:53 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:
It is still the best healthcare system in the world though. The quality of care, the quality of medication, the variety of doctors and medicines available, and of course the wait times for surgeries and procedures are phenomenal and unobtainable through a gov't health care system.
The theoretically best Healthcare that money can buy has about as much to do with a good Healthcare system as invading Iraq to secure peace or Obama with socialism (well, you won't get the last one probably). Wow... Your so clueless on the materia, it really hurts to read your bullshit. About every damn statistic on the planet claims that your Healthcare system is fucking expensive and bad at the same time (read: inefficient). Your making up points on the go witheout any facts... my god. Your a moron.
Our healthcare system is so good that Canadians often come to America for surgeries and treatments because socialism + health care = insane waits for important treatments. You know what's great about being able to pay for good healthcare? When you have to get treated for your CANCER you can get it before you DIE.
Slow healthcare = no healthcare for the ill.
|
See, there is your error.
You see the Canadian system with it's wait times and assume it's everywhere like that.
It's not, not at all, they are diffrent in every damn country. All of them have their own (major) issues but every system has it's own "special" little weakpoitns (except one that all have in common... people get older, people want/need better treatment, everything gets more expensive).
Waiting times/lists are something i never heard before reading it here (a few years ago). Something like that does not exist in Switzerland and a lot of other countries.
|
On January 06 2011 20:34 Velr wrote:
See, there is your error.
You see the Canadian system with it's wait times and assume it's everywhere like that.
It's not, not at all, they are diffrent in every damn country. All of them have their own (major) issues but every system has it's own "special" little weakpoitns (except one that all have in common... people get older, people want/need better treatment, everything gets more expensive).
Waiting times/lists are something i never heard before reading it here (a few years ago). Something like that does not exist in Switzerland and a lot of other countries.
Switzerland is a special country. You are neutral, tiny, and fairly well off.
What country is the US more like? Switzerland or Canada?
A system that works for you will never ever ever work for us. Your healthcare system probably wouldn't even serve New York City. Canada is far closer to the US and everything about its system is a disaster. That's more likely what we'd end up with than yours.
|
Haven't seen a thread that derailed so fast in so many wrong directions. And what a troll parade. Maybe US politics should just be banned for some time, because right now it is pointless to start any kind of thread on this topic.
|
On January 06 2011 17:18 DTrain wrote:In most cases the free market can allocate resources better than a government. However there are some situations where government can out perform the private sector. One example of this is health care. The government run health care systems throughout the world perform much more efficiently than the US privately run system. Just compare health care costs in the US to any other country in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:International_Comparison_-_Healthcare_spending_as_%_GDP.pngHMO and pharmaceutical companies are using the extra money to generate large profits for themselves. In the long run, the US could save itself lots of money by having everyone pay a tax for health care, and then having health care provided by the government to everyone. The UK and Australia both provide free health care and they both run at around 9% of GDP. The US is up near 15% and growing. This is why I don't understand why people are against health care reforms. Not only would they help people who can't afford health insurance, but they would reduce overall spending in the long run.
Cost and effeciency are two completely independent variables, and comparing only costs ignore too many things to even be considered. The US pays the lots of costs for research and licensing for the entire world. Canada on top of that also doesn't allow profits to be made from prescription drugs (mark to market rule). A 5% reduction in US GDP could easily see a raise of 20% or more for other countries, and suddenly the socialized health care is complete garbage.
I doubt the republicans will do anything real. They want to return to 2004 level spending, which is after massive spending increases. I want to return to 1994 levels of spending. If we do that, maybe we won't turn in to 1930 Germany. Republicans are no longer a reversal to Democratic policies which have lead to poverty and mass murder throughout history, but a halt in the march towards social engineering and starvation.
|
On January 06 2011 18:11 Lefnui wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 16:27 Scruffy wrote:
To the guy who said the Democrat "era" was only two years, they were in control of Congress since 2006. Obviously he was not including 2006 because Bush was still in office. To use "Democrat era" in this context at all is ridiculous given the short time span. It would at least make a little more sense to only use it in reference to the past two years, which is what he seemed to be alluding to. Show nested quote +I think that the free market can allocate money better than the government, plain and simple. Yes, very plain and very simple. Show nested quote +If government spending creates jobs, then what happened with the stimulus? I know you will argue "pulled us back from the brink blah blah blah", but honestly, the bill was just a trillion dollar pork bill. I still don't think they have spent most of it. Wonder why that is, huh. That "blah blah blah" is the prevailing view of economists, perhaps you should give it some thought. I'm not quite sure what you mean by that last sentence. It reeks of the type of paranoia seen on the Glenn Beck program. The bill was designed to be implemented over time and not all at once immediately. If you have some strange suspicion regarding that aspect then state it. Show nested quote +Idk, the liberal arguments for most things don't compute with my brain for some reason. It seems that they all want "class warfare" and "poor vs. rich" mentalities about everything. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion when people like you simply copy paste talking points that have been repeated a million times. Specifically cite what liberals or liberal arguments you're referring to and what is wrong with them. Show nested quote +I honestly don't want "rich" people to be taxed more. I work for a small business run by two older guys (construction company), and you think taxing them more will help them hire more and expand?? Who stated that it would? You're arguing with no one. Of course it would not create more jobs. However it would go a very long way in helping to pay off the debt which the right wing is all of the sudden so concerned about. What makes you so certain that a tax cut for those owners would create jobs? I wish that "trickle down effect" played out in reality, it certainly didn't during the eight years in which it was implemented under Bush. Altruism? Compassion? Souls? Show nested quote +Do you really think African-American's poverty demographics have shifted in the past 50 years? They have probably gotten worse. Its almost like the Dems want to tell them (although more covertly, obviously) "Hey, guess what guys, vote us in, and we will pay you to not work!" Pretty sweet deal if you can get it I guess. I can't quite decide: is this vague racism or just plain racism? Stating that black people vote for Democrats so that they can get payed while just sitting around... you are vile. Show nested quote +So basically, what I'm saying is....make government smaller. The people will make things right (if we can/deserve to), not the government. What utter nonsense. If the federal government is weakened power will not be shifted to the general public. It will be shifted to corporations. Show nested quote +I'm counting on people like Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Allen West, etc. to do what they promised. I will fight them tooth and nail if they don't. Paul Ryan was the deciding vote for Medicare Part D, so obviously he is not libertarian. Allen West is an absolute mad man who has espoused ridiculous views, such as the idea that Obama shouldn't take security precautions when flying into Afghanistan(a type of precaution that every single President has taken). To hang your hopes on those men is just absurd.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You think the rich, cigar smoking board rooms will take over the world, left unchecked. It obviously has the be a balance between the two.
"I can't quite decide: is this vague racism or just plain racism? Stating that black people vote for Democrats so that they can get payed while just sitting around... you are vile. " How is what I said racist? I know liberals throw around the word "racist" everytime they start to lose an argument (which is quite often, as this thread shows), but please, spare me from your rhetoric. Its not just black people, its all kinds of people. I'm just saying that because 97% of blacks voted for Obama. How come whites don't vote that race proportionate? Makes you think. The typical voter in America asks themselves "who will give me the most stuff/money", and that is who they vote for. This is why we are in this piss poor situation. The problem is you eventually run out of the working man's money...
The whole argument is moot for the most part though. Most liberals seem to think that humans get their rights from government and not from God/allah/whatever you believe in (Atheismo, lol Futurama reference).
|
On January 06 2011 18:09 Scruffy wrote:You should really read up on your facts about deficits and the national debt. http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2008/09/ten-myths-about-budget-deficits-and-debtLiberals love to point to the past to things that are currently irrelevant to cover all of their real failures. I don't buy the lies. I'm sorry. I mean you can blame Bush all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that Obama and Congress spent 1 trillion to increase the unemployment rate. When it drops, its usually because people are leaving the workforce (talking about past 2 years or so). My faith is not misfounded OR misguided. It is fact. The truth is the liberals' natural enemy.
No. It's just that your facts come from a rhetorical essay written by the Heritage Foundation.
www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html
These are numbers pulled directly from the U.S. Treasury and put into very easy to follow timelines.
As I said earlier, compare the timeline to the changes in the progressive income tax over the past 50 years. Compare it to government spending.
It is clear the national debt started skyrocketing in early Reagan years. This was similarly repeated in the Bush years. Did we multiply government spending in those years? Or were there drastic tax-cuts made?
Edit: For example. The Republicans had control over all 3 branches of government starting in 2002. Go to www.brillig.com/debt_clock/faq.html - look at the numbers following 2002. Why be glad that this party is back in power? They showed the WORST fiscal responsibility in our nation's history. It's inarguable, really. Obama has been in office for not 3 years. The GOP ruined the government's budget for 6 years. And yet you're excited to see them again?
I don't think Obama is doing a good job, personally, nor the Democrats as a whole. But I don't doubt that they have yet to do worse than his predecessors, and there is no reason to be hopeful that this is a brand new Republican party.
|
"They showed the WORST fiscal responsibility in our nation's history" - about Republicans
Have you not seen how much the Democrats have spent so far? (its 3.4 TRILLION by the way) And if you read the article I posted instead of assuming,
"Fact: The real threat is the projected future debt from entitlement spending." Pretty much sums it up. You think wars are expensive...The US has about 72 trillion in assets for all citizens combined. The problem is that there is 112 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
The economy has grown more than spending has (inflation adjusted) over the years.
"A key lesson for lawmakers: Avoid debt-reduction strategies that would significantly reduce economic growth-thereby preventing significant debt ratio improvement. In particular, tax increases may reduce the nominal debt yet also slow economic growth. The better way to reduce the debt ratio is by combining pro-growth tax policies with spending restraint."
Tell a Democrat to look up restraint in the dictionary. It seems they don't know the definition.
|
On January 06 2011 21:22 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 20:34 Velr wrote:
See, there is your error.
You see the Canadian system with it's wait times and assume it's everywhere like that.
It's not, not at all, they are diffrent in every damn country. All of them have their own (major) issues but every system has it's own "special" little weakpoitns (except one that all have in common... people get older, people want/need better treatment, everything gets more expensive).
Waiting times/lists are something i never heard before reading it here (a few years ago). Something like that does not exist in Switzerland and a lot of other countries.
Switzerland is a special country. You are neutral, tiny, and fairly well off. What country is the US more like? Switzerland or Canada? A system that works for you will never ever ever work for us. Your healthcare system probably wouldn't even serve New York City. Canada is far closer to the US and everything about its system is a disaster. That's more likely what we'd end up with than yours.
I know the Swiss system, for obviuos reasons, better than the others. A System which i think would suit the US pretty good because it's run by private insurance companies.
But you somehow managed to totally miss my point:
The System in about every country is diffrent cause every country has it's own system, in some there are waiting lists, in many not... Some will pay for certain stuff, some not... Some make you pay yourself more, some less...
They got one thing in common: In general they are more efficient than the US system... The fun thing is, on most other topics the right-wing/republicans should/would go for the cheaper method.. Or are they only doing this when it serves their own personal benefit because everything else is facism, socialism or communism?
|
On January 07 2011 00:30 Velr wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 21:22 [Eternal]Phoenix wrote:On January 06 2011 20:34 Velr wrote:
See, there is your error.
You see the Canadian system with it's wait times and assume it's everywhere like that.
It's not, not at all, they are diffrent in every damn country. All of them have their own (major) issues but every system has it's own "special" little weakpoitns (except one that all have in common... people get older, people want/need better treatment, everything gets more expensive).
Waiting times/lists are something i never heard before reading it here (a few years ago). Something like that does not exist in Switzerland and a lot of other countries.
Switzerland is a special country. You are neutral, tiny, and fairly well off. What country is the US more like? Switzerland or Canada? A system that works for you will never ever ever work for us. Your healthcare system probably wouldn't even serve New York City. Canada is far closer to the US and everything about its system is a disaster. That's more likely what we'd end up with than yours. I know the Swiss system, for obviuos reasons, better than the others. A System which i think would suit the US pretty good because it's run by private insurance companies. But you somehow managed to totally miss my point: The System in about every country is diffrent cause every country has it's own system, in some there are waiting lists, in many not... Some will pay for certain stuff, some not... Some make you pay yourself more, some less... They got one thing in common: In general they are more efficient than the US system... The fun thing is, on most other topics the right-wing/republicans should/would go for the cheaper method.. Or are they only doing this when it serves their own personal benefit because everything else is facism, socialism or communism?
How would bankrupting the country with healthcare costs benefit them personally?
|
On January 06 2011 12:51 Haemonculus wrote:
And then there's the flawed notion that Socialism is the big scary terrible horrible awful no good very bad doom-of-the-country in the first place.
Right wingers policy are always designed for an elite. Therefore, they need to scare people so that even people who don't have any interest (98% of the population) vote for them. We had exactly the same with Sarkozy, except that the target is not "socialism" but immigrants. French racism is generated by our governments and our medias so that people vote for policies which fuck them in the ass for the benefit of banks, corporations and their shareholders. But oh, folks, the most important is that we kick arabs out of here, right?
This ideological bullcrap about "socialism" in US is just hilarious. Obama is everything in the world but a socialist. But old good irrational ignorant fear of the "red" is what keep Republican going since 50 years, no reason to stop now even if it doesn't make any sense. Especially when you have brainless zombie army such as Fox News as mainstream medias.
|
On January 07 2011 01:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 12:51 Haemonculus wrote:
And then there's the flawed notion that Socialism is the big scary terrible horrible awful no good very bad doom-of-the-country in the first place. Right wingers policy are always designed for an elite. Therefore, they need to scare people so that even people who don't have any interest (98% of the population) vote for them. We had exactly the same with Sarkozy, except that the target is not "socialism" but immigrants. French racism is generated by our governments and our medias so that people vote for policies which fuck them in the ass for the benefit of banks, corporations and their shareholders. But oh, folks, the most important is that we kick arabs out of here, right? This ideological bullcrap about "socialism" in US is just hilarious. Obama is everything in the world but a socialist. But old good irrational ignorant fear of the "red" is what keep Republican going since 50 years, no reason to stop now even if it doesn't make any sense. Especially when you have brainless zombie army such as Fox News as mainstream medias.
So obviously it would be better if Fox News didn't exist, right? That way the MSM would be 100% liberal. The main reason Fox News smashes the others in rating because its all conservatives have to watch that isn't absurdly liberal. If you think the fear of communism is all that keeps the conservative movement going, then you obviously know nothing of American politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
