|
There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican.
Calvin Coolidge.
Moving on...
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad.
you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States)
you dont know what military spending is.
|
On June 22 2011 06:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +Who would want the slightest chance for socialism to happen when you have something as beautiful as the American dream right? i try not to be as mean towards other countries as some of their people are to america, but croatia is just a field of roses and puppydogs, right? people are just dying to immigrate there. walking across the desert even. Show nested quote +You showed him. You are clearly the more eloquent debater. Let me know when you get into the Priesthood and we can celebrate over lemonade and Fox News. well instead of snarking you could read my posts but they would probably make you angrier honestly you might not want to
I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
|
On June 22 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over. How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading.
I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'.
You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
Moral hazard just isn't something you can fix, unless you want to implant a chip in every human-being that stops them taking stupid risks. How much fun would life be then?
|
On June 22 2011 06:08 Noped wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:02 DeepElemBlues wrote:Who would want the slightest chance for socialism to happen when you have something as beautiful as the American dream right? i try not to be as mean towards other countries as some of their people are to america, but croatia is just a field of roses and puppydogs, right? people are just dying to immigrate there. walking across the desert even. You showed him. You are clearly the more eloquent debater. Let me know when you get into the Priesthood and we can celebrate over lemonade and Fox News. well instead of snarking you could read my posts but they would probably make you angrier honestly you might not want to I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right? I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
Those who resort to ad homs ironically end up sounding the most idiotic. Just so you know.
|
[Citation needed], I'd like to see it. I can't imagine it would be that much.
i explained it in a post in this thread
and treemonkeys nice way to change the subject, we weren't talking about maintaining troops in 170+ countries (which in most of those countries amounts to 100 people or less), we were talking about the US being unable to move towards solving the health care problem because of alleged wasted money on defense, when its been shown or at least argued that cutting military spending would be of little help.
also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that?
I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off.
no, i have not gone to any rallies being of rather mean means (like that pun? basically said im pretty poor and its sadly true)
and do you feel an urge to caricature people who say things you dont like politically all the time? it doesnt seem likely to produce any kind of understanding or even honest exchange of ideas.
|
hell yeah, theres a multitude of different countries in europe. countries like germany, having something about 80 mil people and also countries that are fucking huge compared to their population (don't know, something like sweden for example?) and pretty much everything in between
///Edit: And every country got its healthcaresystem, no matter how small, big, poor or rich///
So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding?
It's simply a question of will. Theres a lot of people in this thread who don't want to pay a little more, to secure everyone in your country (talking about healthcare). Well it's your decision. I feel pretty good knowing, that I will at least always get medical treatment for free (as in "don't have to pay the moment I arrive, but indirect via taxes"), no matter what kind of accident may happen / no matter If I got the money to pay taxes AT ALL.
|
On June 22 2011 06:09 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over. How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading. I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'. You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen!
The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate.
My ideal healthcare system is Singapore, which is pretty market-oriented as these things go. They have government controls on what is subsidized to keep costs low.
|
On June 22 2011 06:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican. Calvin Coolidge. Moving on... Show nested quote +
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad. you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States) you dont know what military spending is.
I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out.
When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
|
This is pretty hilarious lol, I like the guy's thinking but it's quite absurd he had to take such drastic measures.
On June 22 2011 05:53 mrando wrote:
in others countries health care is not free
Technically true, but it's still available to everyone, even those who don't pay taxes, so for them it is free.
|
So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding?
when you present an argument ill respond to it
saying that "sweden has low population density too" ignores the overall size of sweden and of the US, im pretty sure thats kind of important when you have to ship something 2000 miles as opposed to 500, things like that.
|
There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare. At the rate of increasing health costs, they'll eventually go bankrupt; take a look at Greece for example. So when the argument gets made it that the U.S should adopt the EU style of healthcare because it "works", ask this question in the next 10-20 years.
|
On June 22 2011 06:12 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:09 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 06:01 domovoi wrote:On June 22 2011 05:53 Bibdy wrote:On June 22 2011 05:49 dogabutila wrote:
Someone explain to me why I should WANT global healthcare coverage? Realistically speaking, I see no reason why I should WANT to pay for joe smith's medical bills. I have plenty of bills to pay for on my own. Because if you get into a seriously bad accident/get a terrible ailment, society-at-large will have your back and get you back on your feet, with no immediate or enormous cost/debt expected from you. If you went into a non-socialized healthcare system, didn't pay for enough insurance, and had the same horrific accident/ailment, you're now in massive debt for the rest of your life, and your future prospects are now basically over. How does one deal with moral hazard? It is not a trivial problem given the disastrous direction that healthcare costs are heading. I grew up in England, under the NHS system, and even still the last thing on my mind was 'I can happily jump off this building, because my family won't have to pay any money to fix me!'. You can't stop moral hazard with any kind of insurance system. If I'm fully covered under a Kaiser Permanente system, how is that any different to a socialized system? The hassle alone is good preventative agent. Why lock my car door when my insurance company will cover the bill? Well, because I don't want my shit stolen! The big moral hazard problem comes from asking for very expensive medical services that don't necessarily help. This problem will continue to exacerbate.
What stops that going on with our current system? The ultimate goal should be getting people healthy. If the doctor believes there is a reasonable chance the service might help, then they should have the power to prescribe it. If they were wrong, then they are ultimately accountable. If they continuously make bad calls, (accounting for reasonable doubt/some unknown illness) then their job is on the line.
Putting the power of medical services in the hands of the patient, who hasn't got the faintest fucking clue how medicinal science works, really doesn't sound conducive to good healthcare for all. Nearly everyone shows up to a doctor's appointment in the US with wikipedia and webmd.com entries loaded up on their smartphone, ready to tell their doctor, "I think I've got that. Fix it.".
|
On June 22 2011 06:13 Eknoid4 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican. Calvin Coolidge. Moving on...
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad. you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States) you dont know what military spending is. I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out. When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit. My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
I'm all for decreasing the military's budget and getting out of unnecessary wars. But that's not going to fix the healthcare problem.
|
On June 22 2011 06:14 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +So, you guys want to tell me, because of the very special ratio of USA-Size VS USA-population its fucking impossible to get a healthcare system provided by taxes because of infrastructure and so on? Are you kidding? when you present an argument ill respond to it saying that "sweden has low population density too" ignores the overall size of sweden and of the US, im pretty sure thats kind of important when you have to ship something 2000 miles as opposed to 500, things like that.
I've seen you flatly say, "It is more expensive because of population density\distance" but I've yet to see a source for that wisdom.
Edit: Pretty sure Russia has universal healthcare.
|
On June 22 2011 06:16 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 06:13 Eknoid4 wrote:On June 22 2011 06:07 DeepElemBlues wrote:There is no such thing as a fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican. Calvin Coolidge. Moving on...
Our economy is protectionist and closer to fascism than capitalism. The government plays a huge role in making sure big business stays powerful and protects their foreign interests. Read a book. Our military spending doesn't go toward food or medicine in Africa. Most of the US's military spending is defense contracts where they basically build planes, deconstruct planes, and then build better planes, all on the government's tab.
most of this paragraph is wrong, specifically the protectionist, humanitarian aid, and defense spending parts. also the read a book part makes you look bad. you go read a book, and maybe some news stories about whose ships and helicopters were the ones delivering aid the earliest and delivering the most supplies overall during the Boxing Day Tsunami disaster just for example... (answer: United States) you dont know what military spending is. I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out. When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit. My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close. I'm all for decreasing the military's budget and getting out of unnecessary wars. But that's not going to fix the healthcare problem.
It's going to help with the budget a lot. Which will help with everything else.
|
On June 22 2011 06:16 Yang Wenli wrote:
There is no such thing as Free Healthcare period. The European system of socialized healthcare will treat you for any injury, illness, or accident you incurred and you get you back to health. The problem with socialized healthcare is that it is not sustainable. The United States gets a lot of attention when its comes to our public debt and spending, yet has anyone taken look at the EU? They are so mired in public debt far worse than the United States in terms of GDP. Even with tax rates between 60-83%(Income tax + Vat tax) they still cannot finance socialized welfare programs with taxes alone including healthcare.
The US is one country, Europe is many different countries with different economies, levels of debt and systems of healthcare. It's been working pretty damn well in the majority of the countries for over 60 years, you can't just write that off by consolidating all of Europe into one and pulling out random figures.
On June 22 2011 06:18 ThreeAcross wrote:
I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all.
Obviously it's not free but in every other Western country it costs less and a better service is usually provided...
|
I love how everyone is saying they get free healthcare.. Newsflash to those 15-24 year olds that don't really pay any taxes... It isn't free at all.
You don't need to be rich to afford healthcare in the states. I do it for my family, on a modest income in a fairly expensive area. I do believe that our healthcare system isn't anywhere near perfect, but I do not agree that we need a government run system.
I do think we need to stop all the frivolous lawsuits that happen that make doctors carry exorbitant amounts of insurance that in turn raise costs.
Also, I don't really know the answer to this so if someone does let me know. Where are most drugs researched in the world? I know it takes a lot of money to do drug research, so that might contribute. I think I am going to look that up now.
|
I know there are a lot of people who commit crimes just to have a safer place to stay and some food to eat. Prison can be easier than life on the street. This is sort of like that except on a larger scale.
|
On June 22 2011 06:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +[Citation needed], I'd like to see it. I can't imagine it would be that much. i explained it in a post in this thread and treemonkeys nice way to change the subject, we weren't talking about maintaining troops in 170+ countries (which in most of those countries amounts to 100 people or less), we were talking about the US being unable to move towards solving the health care problem because of alleged wasted money on defense, when its been shown or at least argued that cutting military spending would be of little help. also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that? Show nested quote +I know, I'm so angry right now. Furious even. Was I right about the Fox News part though? I bet you went to the rally in D.C., right?
I'll try not to be so angry, but when I read words it clearly just sets me off. no, i have not gone to any rallies being of rather mean means (like that pun? basically said im pretty poor and its sadly true) and do you feel an urge to caricature people who say things you dont like politically all the time? it doesnt seem likely to produce any kind of understanding or even honest exchange of ideas.
More specifically, this comment:
"also no more defense spending means a lot of people out of work and no health insurance for them, have you thought of that?"
Are you kidding me? What a brainless point. So basically we should not cut spending ANYWHERE because whoever is ultimately benefiting from that money would... *gasp*.. not be getting that money anymore...
|
I'm talking about the majority of spending. The vast majority of the US military budget does NOT go toward humanitarian aid. Just because we're in other countries doesn't mean it's called humanitarian aid. Just because we delivered the most supplies doesn't mean it is a majority of our military spending. the US has a lot more people and a lot more resources to donate than most other countries who helped out.
who cares if we have more? the people who were saved dont care that per capita or whatever country X gave more. they care about tons of food brought in, doses of medicine, the raw numbers of what is available vs. what is needed.
all that per capita superiority wouldnt help one bit if the US just said "eh, no more" tomorrow and backed it up.
the large bulk of us military spending is maintaining the capability to deliver lots of stuff to pretty much anywhere in the world pretty damn fast, it doesnt matter if we only use it sometimes, when needed, for humanitarian aid
if we didnt spend the money to maintain the capability, we couldnt bring to bear enough capability fast enough to make the kind of difference we can
so i disagree with your assertions here
When the japanese earthquake hit one of their main highways was rebuilt in 6 days. New Orleans is still in shambles. Don't tell me that the US spending is primarily humanitarian benefit.
youre changing the subject i dont know if you're talking about humanitarian spending military spending or total US spending
the US's troubles with katrina have what relevance here exactly, except to point to one of the few examples where the US humanitarian response was less than stellar?
and i hardly consider barely over a thousand people dying to be some kind of horrible indictment on the us, as tragic as it was that many of those people did die needlessly
My other point is that fiscally responsible laissez faire business republican is a pop culture label that people use to give the illusion that their interests are free-market economics. This is not a free market. Not even close.
So, would a more free market hurt or not? You say it's an illusion to think that more free market is good, but then say we don't have one, not even close. So... uh... didn't you contradict yourself? If we're not even close, and what we have is shitty, aren't we then closer to the end of the spectrum?
I didn't think you were saying socialism is shitty, but...
anyway this other point as you call it is kind of incoherent anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
