On February 03 2012 14:03 eyeballball3 wrote: Makes sense to me. People should have health savings account or buy their own health insurance independent from the government. Having on mandate on insurance is worst than having a mandate on high school education. Government should only do what people can't do best themselves. Whenever government intervenes with anything, the prices inflate so much that a normal person can buy their health insurance independently. Look at what happened to education when government got involved.
yep and while we're at it let's ditch the post office for private couriers (nevermind people who live in rural areas that are too expensive to service), stop paving roads (private toll roads were just find) and go back to having private armies (hey, they worked in Europe for hundreds of years, who are we to say no to that?!)
I mean, just look at all of these countries and how much they waste on health care while us glorious Americans enjoy the low costs provided by our private insurers!
Ditching the post office for private couriers is an excellent idea and will likely come to fruition whether people like it or not. The USPS is going bankrupt because it is being restrained by law to not follow good business practice and is forced to live with one hundred year old idealogy.
Why do I have to have money taken from me because people choose to live in the middle of no where? Since when is it a right to dodge the costs of making a life decision on where to live? If people choose to live in the middle of nowhere, it is a choice and they should have to live with that choice good and bad.
The USPS is going bankrupt because it's being forced to adopt a long term service agreement which forces it to pay for all SS and Medicare mail for the next 70 years in the next 10 years. After it's over, the USPS will probably be hailed as a perfect model for moving postage, running a healthy budget surplus. However, right now, it's politically expedient to target it as a huge bureaucratic nightmare.
Right, get rid of government interference/regulation and it would be a fine company.
If you want to live under a rock and ignore the facts, that's fine by me.
Most people have tens of thousands of 9th cousins. What a ridiculously stupid point to make. Obviously because they are so minisculely related it means they are the exact same politician /rollseye
Your stupid propaganda posts just make me want to vote for RP less and less, and a few months ago he was my 2nd choice behind Hunstman
Say all you want but, get angry at the news report in CBS not me. Anyways, Huntsman was a dick towards Paul when he was running in NH. Also, the Huntsman Campaign may have been behind that racist video that was supposedly posted under the Paul campaign. They basically false flagged it and used a Karl Rove strategy to make them look bad:
Huntsman was no different than the other republican nominees on all the important issues.. spending, war and the economy.. He eloquently dodged every question he was asked and people liked him only because they don't truly understand Ron Paul's message...
Ron Paul is basically everything liberals wanted based on Obama's campaign ..
End the wars, transparency, equal rights for all..
On February 03 2012 14:03 eyeballball3 wrote: Makes sense to me. People should have health savings account or buy their own health insurance independent from the government. Having on mandate on insurance is worst than having a mandate on high school education. Government should only do what people can't do best themselves. Whenever government intervenes with anything, the prices inflate so much that a normal person can buy their health insurance independently. Look at what happened to education when government got involved.
yep and while we're at it let's ditch the post office for private couriers (nevermind people who live in rural areas that are too expensive to service), stop paving roads (private toll roads were just find) and go back to having private armies (hey, they worked in Europe for hundreds of years, who are we to say no to that?!)
I mean, just look at all of these countries and how much they waste on health care while us glorious Americans enjoy the low costs provided by our private insurers!
Ditching the post office for private couriers is an excellent idea and will likely come to fruition whether people like it or not. The USPS is going bankrupt because it is being restrained by law to not follow good business practice and is forced to live with one hundred year old idealogy.
Why do I have to have money taken from me because people choose to live in the middle of no where? Since when is it a right to dodge the costs of making a life decision on where to live? If people choose to live in the middle of nowhere, it is a choice and they should have to live with that choice good and bad.
The USPS is going bankrupt because it's being forced to adopt a long term service agreement which forces it to pay for all SS and Medicare mail for the next 70 years in the next 10 years. After it's over, the USPS will probably be hailed as a perfect model for moving postage, running a healthy budget surplus. However, right now, it's politically expedient to target it as a huge bureaucratic nightmare.
Right, get rid of government interference/regulation and it would be a fine company.
Not necessarily. A regular business (like FedEx) would be able to borrow for that kind of investment and nobody would bat an eye.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
On February 03 2012 06:40 Focuspants wrote: Health care should not be a business. It should be an essntial service. Period. Corporations cut corners to maximize profits, they artificially inflate prices, they try to deny expensive services in an effort to make moe money. The Canadian system isnt perfect, but it is very very good. I just had to rush my grandma to the hospital after she had a blood test, which was processed within hours, and the lab doctor called our house at 11:30pm (the lab is open 24 hours) to let us know her hemoglobin level was critically low and to rush her to emergency (she had 4 hours before her heart would have seized). We rushed to the hospital, she was in the ER with 2 doctors and a team of nurses within 1 minute of arriving, she got a blood transfusion (5 bags). She got a stomach scope, they found she was bleeding from her stomach, they fixed it immediately. She stayed in the hospital for 4 nights, and it cost us 0 dollars. Shes at home happy and healthy.
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option.
I dont understand how Santorum could look a woman in the eye and say that to her. Its really sad. When did being conservative become being bat shit crazy. None of the remaining candidates have realistic positions that benefit normal people, and they have even less to show for the poor.
It cost you 0 dollars, but it cost me $6000. Why should my family and I have to suffer because your grandma is dying? The problem with health care in general is people like you that think that because you don't pay the hospitals directly that it all occurs for free. It is not free, we pay taxes out the ass to support central medical care. People who are healthy and live healthy lives are punished by government through taxation to pay for your grandma's stomach. What incentive is there to live properly to extend your own life when you can just suckle off the government tit to cure what ails you?
~20% of all taxation goes to healthcare, which is very high.
My grandma worked and paid taxes since the 50s in this country. I know the money comes from paying taxes. The point is its a non-for profit system which is run by an organization whos main focus is keeping its citizens alive, not earning money. The belief that you should only pay for what you need is extremely selfish and misguided. The fact is that someone that was bron with a health issue, or acquired one (yes people that lead healthy lives do get sick believe it or not), should not mean they should be forced to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars to a corporation for medication.
Also, It didnt cost me 0 and you 6k. I had to pay taxes, as did my sister, as did my mom, as did my dad, etc... You arent this unfortunate person being ripped off by the government paying for everyones shit. We all pitch in. You give yourself too much worth. Without others, you would be nothing. I would much rather pay for the care of 6 ppl per year, knowing full well that I dont have to worry about myself being taken care of when I need it, than make myself a shed. If someone walked up to you and said you can either pay your taxes and help these people live, or make yourself a shed, you would actually pick the shed? Taxes dont burden you to a point of not being able to live comfortably. Youre just a selfish prick.
Apparently there is enough motivation in Canada to have much lower poverty rates, a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, a larger middle class, etc... than the US. Youre going to pay for healthcare one way or another, and the fact is, it costs many times more in the US per capita. The amount of work and money my grandma has put into the system far outweighs the amount shes used. Shes almost surely put more into it than you have, and shes DEFINITELY faced more adversity, and had to work harder to build a life here than you or I have. Stop being an arrogant dick, and look at the facts. The system that more closely resembles your desires, is significantly worse.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
The government ends up representing the majority. The VAST majority are for the system we have in place. You are an EXTREME minority (thank god for that). You either take part in what the majority of society wants it to be like, or get out. A country ruled by private enterprise, one where the dollar is the most important thing in any and all situations, and self preservation, without a sense of unity is prominant, is not my type of country. Almost everyone in Canada would agree with that stance. You dont like it, get out. Period. The government isnt stealing your money. You are free to pick up and leave if you dont like the lifestyle this country provides you. Im just letting you know, it will be almost impossible to find somewhere your selfish naive ideals are the standard, that has a higher quality of life.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
I feel like people lose sigh of the fact that government and community was established for a reason. There was once a time where a pack of bandits would ride over to your property, rape your wife, kill her, kill you, then steal all your shit. Just tough luck! When suddenly, people started to realize that kinda blows, so slowly but surely, we are where we are today, where we never have to worry about such things. Businesses are protected, people are protected. We don't have to lay our own roads to get places, we don't have to generate our own electricity, we don't have to find our own water source. And you know what, I think that's a great thing that we've come this far. I feel like those services are worth the taxes I pay. In fact, I'd say I get a really good deal.
The Constitution of the United States created a government to limit....government. Justice and security are, according to the Constitution, acceptable roles of government. And you don't seriously believe that government has anything to do with power generation do you? Finding water? You don't think that those cars people drive are created by the government and are given to people for free do you?
The Constitution of the United States also allowed slavery and denied women the right to vote. It was written in a very different time and a much smaller population.
The Constitution clearly isn't prepared to deal with everything in modern times effectively.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
On February 03 2012 14:29 Vasoline73 wrote: You're not trying to ask him though, you're trying to force him. I'm not saying it's right or wrong to force tax payment for health care, just that it's not exactly "asking" when you go to jail if you refuse to pay the tax.
he has a choice.
participate in society and pay his taxes
or the firemen dont come to his house when it's on fire.
lol actually no, he doesn't have a choice. Unless you want to say that the choice is "pay or get thrown in jail." If it was as simple as "pay or you won't receive government services" then I don't think any libertarian in the world would have a problem with the system.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
I feel like people lose sigh of the fact that government and community was established for a reason. There was once a time where a pack of bandits would ride over to your property, rape your wife, kill her, kill you, then steal all your shit. Just tough luck! When suddenly, people started to realize that kinda blows, so slowly but surely, we are where we are today, where we never have to worry about such things. Businesses are protected, people are protected. We don't have to lay our own roads to get places, we don't have to generate our own electricity, we don't have to find our own water source. And you know what, I think that's a great thing that we've come this far. I feel like those services are worth the taxes I pay. In fact, I'd say I get a really good deal.
This is spot on. Anyone who doesn't understand or "agree" with this really needs to educate themselves. You might still not think it's a good deal, today, but I still find that a redicolous position to hold.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
In that case, EVERYONE in modern society is guilty of theft from everyone else. Even the rich are stealing from the poor.
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
In that case, EVERYONE in modern society is guilty of theft from everyone else. Even the rich are stealing from the poor.
I think solar.ic defined theft a few pages back. The rich don't steal from the poor. Avoiding taxes and firing people (or whatever the rich are doing) is not theft. You might be convinced that its unethical, but thats another discussion.
On February 03 2012 14:03 eyeballball3 wrote: Makes sense to me. People should have health savings account or buy their own health insurance independent from the government. Having on mandate on insurance is worst than having a mandate on high school education. Government should only do what people can't do best themselves. Whenever government intervenes with anything, the prices inflate so much that a normal person can buy their health insurance independently. Look at what happened to education when government got involved.
yep and while we're at it let's ditch the post office for private couriers (nevermind people who live in rural areas that are too expensive to service), stop paving roads (private toll roads were just find) and go back to having private armies (hey, they worked in Europe for hundreds of years, who are we to say no to that?!)
I mean, just look at all of these countries and how much they waste on health care while us glorious Americans enjoy the low costs provided by our private insurers!
Ditching the post office for private couriers is an excellent idea and will likely come to fruition whether people like it or not. The USPS is going bankrupt because it is being restrained by law to not follow good business practice and is forced to live with one hundred year old idealogy.
Why do I have to have money taken from me because people choose to live in the middle of no where? Since when is it a right to dodge the costs of making a life decision on where to live? If people choose to live in the middle of nowhere, it is a choice and they should have to live with that choice good and bad.
What if these people are farmers who are producing the food you eat? If these people had to pay for all these expensive regional services themselves, maybe they would choose not to be farmers and pursue some other career path they could actually afford to be in.
I guess then you are going to tell me that you hunt and gather all your food yourself and you would cope fine without them?
On February 03 2012 14:34 Rabbet wrote: But what I am arguing against is the theft of my hard earned dollars, through taxation, to support a mandate that government has no business being in(healthcare).
such short sightedness, such selfishness, such ingratitude.
your "hard earned dollars"? what a joke. even if you went to private school, rode through the woods on a bicycle you made your damn self and killed/grew all of your own food the people you work with who make your income possible use the public infrastructure, public safety and public health.
you are NOTHING without society and if you want to see how fast your little fantasy evaporates take it to a country where the government really doesnt do anything, including taking your money. I hear Etheopia is nice. Somalia, too.
whoever taught you about government and/or history failed miserably to instill in you an appreciation for the social contract and what it means to be a good citizen.
you speak of theft? someone seems to have robbed you of your common sense.
Social contract? Ok, so if I have to hold up my end of this contract why doesn't the government have to hold up its end? It comes down to who has the power and as it stands the government has the power. If I take someones money, I go to jail. Yet the government takes my money unwillingly ever tax year, and so what? The government was never created by the people for the people to intrude on our lives and force us into doing things we do not want to do(giving away my own money). I don't disregard the social contract, I don't steal from people and I don't use violence against people, but it is quite hypocritical that government abuses the powers that we have given them and people like you try to contort the view that keeping what is rightfully ours into a negative thing like shortsightedness, selfishness and ingratitude.
Taxes are not theft. They are your dues for enjoying the benefits of society. If you don't like it, move. That's how a social contract works.
Robin hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor. Whether there are benefits to this, and whether this creates a better world is another discussion. Nevertheless taxes are theft. You could however argue that its a nessacary theft for the greater good.
In that case, EVERYONE in modern society is guilty of theft from everyone else. Even the rich are stealing from the poor.
I think solar.ic defined theft a few pages back. The rich don't steal from the poor. Avoiding taxes and firing people (or whatever the rich are doing) is not theft. You might be convinced that its unethical, but thats another discussion.
On February 03 2012 06:40 Focuspants wrote: Health care should not be a business. It should be an essntial service. Period. Corporations cut corners to maximize profits, they artificially inflate prices, they try to deny expensive services in an effort to make moe money. The Canadian system isnt perfect, but it is very very good. I just had to rush my grandma to the hospital after she had a blood test, which was processed within hours, and the lab doctor called our house at 11:30pm (the lab is open 24 hours) to let us know her hemoglobin level was critically low and to rush her to emergency (she had 4 hours before her heart would have seized). We rushed to the hospital, she was in the ER with 2 doctors and a team of nurses within 1 minute of arriving, she got a blood transfusion (5 bags). She got a stomach scope, they found she was bleeding from her stomach, they fixed it immediately. She stayed in the hospital for 4 nights, and it cost us 0 dollars. Shes at home happy and healthy.
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option.
I dont understand how Santorum could look a woman in the eye and say that to her. Its really sad. When did being conservative become being bat shit crazy. None of the remaining candidates have realistic positions that benefit normal people, and they have even less to show for the poor.
It cost you 0 dollars, but it cost me $6000. Why should my family and I have to suffer because your grandma is dying? The problem with health care in general is people like you that think that because you don't pay the hospitals directly that it all occurs for free. It is not free, we pay taxes out the ass to support central medical care. People who are healthy and live healthy lives are punished by government through taxation to pay for your grandma's stomach. What incentive is there to live properly to extend your own life when you can just suckle off the government tit to cure what ails you?
~20% of all taxation goes to healthcare, which is very high.
My grandma worked and paid taxes since the 50s in this country. I know the money comes from paying taxes. The point is its a non-for profit system which is run by an organization whos main focus is keeping its citizens alive, not earning money. The belief that you should only pay for what you need is extremely selfish and misguided. The fact is that someone that was bron with a health issue, or acquired one (yes people that lead healthy lives do get sick believe it or not), should not mean they should be forced to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars to a corporation for medication.
Also, It didnt cost me 0 and you 6k. I had to pay taxes, as did my sister, as did my mom, as did my dad, etc... You arent this unfortunate person being ripped off by the government paying for everyones shit. We all pitch in. You give yourself too much worth. Without others, you would be nothing. I would much rather pay for the care of 6 ppl per year, knowing full well that I dont have to worry about myself being taken care of when I need it, than make myself a shed. If someone walked up to you and said you can either pay your taxes and help these people live, or make yourself a shed, you would actually pick the shed? Taxes dont burden you to a point of not being able to live comfortably. Youre just a selfish prick.
Apparently there is enough motivation in Canada to have much lower poverty rates, a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, a larger middle class, etc... than the US. Youre going to pay for healthcare one way or another, and the fact is, it costs many times more in the US per capita. The amount of work and money my grandma has put into the system far outweighs the amount shes used. Shes almost surely put more into it than you have, and shes DEFINITELY faced more adversity, and had to work harder to build a life here than you or I have. Stop being an arrogant dick, and look at the facts. The system that more closely resembles your desires, is significantly worse.
Shouldn't one be able to choose if another's problems become their own? I don't feel the need to replace my friends car when he gets into an accident. If my brother's lawn mower breaks down, he doesn't come to me for money for a new one. Why is health any different? I would help my friend pay for a new car and my brother a lawn mower but it is my choice to do so.
If all your family pay taxes, then in a system not controlled by the government you all would have pitched in and helped your grandma out because you would all have a lot more money to do so. I am sorry if you think I'm a prick but honestly I don't give a shit about your grandma or her stomach troubles. If you went up to the average person and said "my grandma is sick and needs money for a nurse to live with her, give me money to pay for it now!" what do you think the response would be? People are greedy and selfish, it is one of our guiding instincts that make us a successful species and I won't feel shame for having it.
As far as having the system Canadians want, well you bet. The same is true for old age security and CPP, but you know what? We can't afford those systems, they are not sustainable. Costs in medicare are growing faster than our ability to fund them. When the baby boomers retire there are going to be huge amounts of unfunded liability(in CPP, OAS and Medicare) that the government will have to borrow to pay and it gets worse year after year until the system will fall apart or .....they tax us more....
Look at what private enterprise had to do with their pension plans. Almost all pension plans were defined benefit, meaning no matter how well the pension fund was doing you, as a retiree, received your check in the mail without question based off how much you paid into the fund over time. The problem with these pension funds are they do not have enough guaranteed income to replenish the disbursements paid to the retirees, so over time they would go bankrupt because more was going out than was coming in. Over the last 8 years, many companies have changed their pensions to defined contribution meaning the amount of money you put in is paid back to you with interest but no more than that. The difference between the two is quite simple, one is sustainable and one is not. The path our medicare, OAS and CPP are going are not sustainable and will need reform. In an ideal world they would just trash all those programs and let me worry about my health and retirement savings on my own.
On February 03 2012 14:03 eyeballball3 wrote: Makes sense to me. People should have health savings account or buy their own health insurance independent from the government. Having on mandate on insurance is worst than having a mandate on high school education. Government should only do what people can't do best themselves. Whenever government intervenes with anything, the prices inflate so much that a normal person can buy their health insurance independently. Look at what happened to education when government got involved.
yep and while we're at it let's ditch the post office for private couriers (nevermind people who live in rural areas that are too expensive to service), stop paving roads (private toll roads were just find) and go back to having private armies (hey, they worked in Europe for hundreds of years, who are we to say no to that?!)
I mean, just look at all of these countries and how much they waste on health care while us glorious Americans enjoy the low costs provided by our private insurers!
Ditching the post office for private couriers is an excellent idea and will likely come to fruition whether people like it or not. The USPS is going bankrupt because it is being restrained by law to not follow good business practice and is forced to live with one hundred year old idealogy.
Why do I have to have money taken from me because people choose to live in the middle of no where? Since when is it a right to dodge the costs of making a life decision on where to live? If people choose to live in the middle of nowhere, it is a choice and they should have to live with that choice good and bad.
What if these people are farmers who are producing the food you eat? If these people had to pay for all these expensive regional services themselves, maybe they would choose not to be farmers and pursue some other career path they could actually afford to be in.
I guess then you are going to tell me that you hunt and gather all your food yourself and you would cope fine without them?
Get a grip man
What if they are farmers? What does it have to do with anything what they do for a living? Are you trying to make me pity farmers in the event they have to pay their share to get mail delivered to them?
Farmers run a business. Every business has costs associated with it for operation. Every business has revenue. Farmers would have increase their revenue to meet the extra costs associated with having deliveries made to them, but that is their business and they would manage. Either the price of their commodities would go up or they would have to find efficiencies in the business to make it work. Businesses actually having to pay their proper share of costs is a good thing, it would make them(in the mail situation) understand that sending mailers/flyers to the entire country side is a waste of god damn money.
Here is a scenario for you, what if the government decided to regulate fuel prices? This would surely benefit farmers greatly because instead of their fuel cost fluctuating 10-20% per year it would be fixed cost. Wouldn't this be great? Fuel forever at 1.09 per litre or 3.60 per gallon? Why doesn't the government do that? Anyone? Because there would be no god damn fuel that's why.
On February 03 2012 06:40 Focuspants wrote: Health care should not be a business. It should be an essntial service. Period. Corporations cut corners to maximize profits, they artificially inflate prices, they try to deny expensive services in an effort to make moe money. The Canadian system isnt perfect, but it is very very good. I just had to rush my grandma to the hospital after she had a blood test, which was processed within hours, and the lab doctor called our house at 11:30pm (the lab is open 24 hours) to let us know her hemoglobin level was critically low and to rush her to emergency (she had 4 hours before her heart would have seized). We rushed to the hospital, she was in the ER with 2 doctors and a team of nurses within 1 minute of arriving, she got a blood transfusion (5 bags). She got a stomach scope, they found she was bleeding from her stomach, they fixed it immediately. She stayed in the hospital for 4 nights, and it cost us 0 dollars. Shes at home happy and healthy.
Anyone that thinks you should have to pay out the ass for that, or deal with corporations and insurance companies is out of their mind. Ive had many experiences with many family friends and relatives and the health care system, and I cant understand how a free market system is even remotely considered to be an option.
I dont understand how Santorum could look a woman in the eye and say that to her. Its really sad. When did being conservative become being bat shit crazy. None of the remaining candidates have realistic positions that benefit normal people, and they have even less to show for the poor.
It cost you 0 dollars, but it cost me $6000. Why should my family and I have to suffer because your grandma is dying? The problem with health care in general is people like you that think that because you don't pay the hospitals directly that it all occurs for free. It is not free, we pay taxes out the ass to support central medical care. People who are healthy and live healthy lives are punished by government through taxation to pay for your grandma's stomach. What incentive is there to live properly to extend your own life when you can just suckle off the government tit to cure what ails you?
~20% of all taxation goes to healthcare, which is very high.
My grandma worked and paid taxes since the 50s in this country. I know the money comes from paying taxes. The point is its a non-for profit system which is run by an organization whos main focus is keeping its citizens alive, not earning money. The belief that you should only pay for what you need is extremely selfish and misguided. The fact is that someone that was bron with a health issue, or acquired one (yes people that lead healthy lives do get sick believe it or not), should not mean they should be forced to pay tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, or millions of dollars to a corporation for medication.
Also, It didnt cost me 0 and you 6k. I had to pay taxes, as did my sister, as did my mom, as did my dad, etc... You arent this unfortunate person being ripped off by the government paying for everyones shit. We all pitch in. You give yourself too much worth. Without others, you would be nothing. I would much rather pay for the care of 6 ppl per year, knowing full well that I dont have to worry about myself being taken care of when I need it, than make myself a shed. If someone walked up to you and said you can either pay your taxes and help these people live, or make yourself a shed, you would actually pick the shed? Taxes dont burden you to a point of not being able to live comfortably. Youre just a selfish prick.
Apparently there is enough motivation in Canada to have much lower poverty rates, a higher standard of living, lower crime rates, a larger middle class, etc... than the US. Youre going to pay for healthcare one way or another, and the fact is, it costs many times more in the US per capita. The amount of work and money my grandma has put into the system far outweighs the amount shes used. Shes almost surely put more into it than you have, and shes DEFINITELY faced more adversity, and had to work harder to build a life here than you or I have. Stop being an arrogant dick, and look at the facts. The system that more closely resembles your desires, is significantly worse.
The main focus of the government.. or even the government health service/department/etc. is NOT to keep people alive. Since it is an organization, you can't truly say what its main focus actually is. You can talk about the motivations of people within the organization, and how their actions give them more or less power to pursue other actions in the organization.
But basically as a government, its main focus is to increase power (corporations are the same, they are just generally restricted to money as the power they want to pursue)
The issue comes when making decisions. In Every single system of healthcare, people have to decide when Not to give healthcare... (otherwise health care is the only thing anyone would ever do). ie there are "death panels" in every system. The issue is if the "death panel" is the government, insurance office, or with you and your family.
The principle of insurance (I pay for taking care of x ppl, and I know I will be taken care of) is good but more complicated in healthcare because it is more than a property loss that is involved. (and preventative care takes a Major role)
On January 31 2012 02:40 Hider wrote: Hi Tor, I honestly just wondered if there actually was a empirical critic of the austrian school. Of course I don't think it can proove anything, but I would still be interest in reading it. Anyway I will read your link later when I have time.
Not Tor, but I do have an M.A. in Economics so maybe I know something. Well, probably not lol.
The empirical evidence against Austrian economics is called econometrics.
IME trying to have a discussion with an Austrian trained individual is somewhat like talking to global warming deniers. They have every excuse in the world why all data is wrong except for the one crack pot who cooked the books to agree with them. Case in point are the people who selectively "cleaned" pre-WWII data to try and construe the new deal as doing more harm than good.
On a more general note, though still on the topic of economics here, I have personally given up any hope that macro models will ever be of any predictive use. I think that trying to predict the behavior of human beings is a fool's errand and that even in aggregation people can be fooled for quite a long time (e.g. home prices, the current price of gold, etc) to a degree that makes prediction a waste of time. More useful is the use of econometrics as a descriptive science to hopefully give us a best guess as to which programs may or may not work.
Ron Paul is then, at least as far as I care, completely useless. He has a preconceived, and intransigent, mindset when it comes to policy and will simply impose his theory on an economy and, as so many who have the same outlook do, ignore the effects as it's happening.
I don't believe that Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney have the slightest understanding of economics. I dont believe that Mitt Romney actually knows anything about business that you dont learn in business school (i.e. enough to be dangerous but not enough to do any good). All in all, I think everyone left in this race is just as ****ing ignorant as the rest of us. So, I think that the least disastrous outcome is that Romney wins because I think his staff will be the most reasonable. Gingrich is a crazy person and Ron Paul is a well meaning idiot.
I will vote for Mitt. Not because I am a conservative person; but rather I think that Mitt Romney will be like a early 20th century vaccine; poisonous to remind people why the Republican party shouldnt be in charge of anything but not bad enough to wreck the country irreparably.
So how do you measure whether the fiscal policiy was a succes or failure? By looking at GDP/unemployment figures?
But if you read my example, I actually wrote that GDP and employment would rise because of fiscal policy (short-tem effect). So this goes back again to the aggreate data problem. The problem isn't that GDP is falling, but the problem is the misallocation of labour.
Paraleluniverse: "Jobs create by stimulus has more value than no jobs at all.
I honestly don't understand why you keep repeating this, as you haven't even tried dismiss the problem of "aggregate sizes". Some how you still think 900 haircutters creates wealth, when the society only needs 500.
Your example is completely divorced from reality.
In reality, the government can borrow at negative real interest rates (i.e. inflation is higher than the rate government needs to repay on debt). In reality, there is idle resources, people sitting around doing nothing and wanting to work.
Society needs less teachers? Less investments in infrastructure? Less investments in research? Less manufacturing?
You're argument is that unemployment is good, and that it's good for the economy that resources are not put to use.
Glad for your answer:
1) The rate of interest rates doesn't make the example unrealistic (you can assume that government could borrow money for free to make the fiscal policiy. Wouldn't really change the point I am trying to make with the problem of aggregate numbers.
2) I actually assumed there were idle ressoruces (50 people unemployed in my example. 25 of them got a job becasue of fiscal policy).
3) I only used 2 different industries to make the example less complicated. Adding 10 more industrys wouldn't change the principle. Too many people still work in the haircut industry and need to be fired and then employed to the other industries before the economy gets healthy.
4) As I somehwat understand your logic you agree with me that the ratio needs to be 500/500 (agree?), but your convinced that fiscal policiy makes more people be employed in the machine industry.
But how? Where do these people come from? According to my logic they should come from the haircut industry (where they get fired). Where should they come from according to your logic? (The unemployed?). But if they are to build this bridge, obv. there will be less people for the machine sector ti hire. And because aggregate spendings increases (compared to if there were 0 fiscal policies) the haircut indsutry can afford to slow down the "firing rate" (agree?).
And this means (according to my logic), that it will take more time before we get to the 500/500 ratio, and until then the economy will never be healthy. It will be in a constant recession (or perhaps it will just has indebted it self before we get there).
What matters is that what you assume has no resemblance to reality, so your example cannot be taken seriously.
There are idle resources and you imply that it is better that they stay idle instead of letting the government pay them to build a bridge. Thus your argument is that unemployment is good, i.e. it's better that some people do nothing for society, than it is for them to contribute to society.
Your argument hinges on the fact that if the government did nothing, the system would move to the "optimal" 500-500 split. But that isn't what would happen in reality. In reality, the crash that led to people being fired in the haircut sector would create a vicious cycle of falling employment, which causes falling demand, which causes falling employment, and so on. The 500-500 split that you assumed where supply equals demand at the start no longer applies, because demand is not the same, demand has fallen. And without government intervention, there will either be no recovery or a very slow recovery.
You also assume that if the government did nothing, the economy would move to the 500-500 split, i.e. employment in the haircut sector would fall, and unemployment in the other sector would rise. This is not how the real world works. This is empirically false, and it shows how divorced from reality your example is. In a real recession, in the real world, employment falls in essentially every sector. Workers are not transferred from a suboptimal allocation to a more optical one, they are simply fired.
The point of fiscal policy is to get idle workers to do work. Not to reach some abstract and imaginary 500-500 equilibrium that you concocted. There is nothing to suggest that the free market would magically hit the optimal way to allocate resources in an economy during a recession, in fact what is more likely to happen is that the negative feedback loop would reinforce and the downward spiral towards mass unemployment would continue.
Furthermore, you have made a strawman argument against fiscal policy. Even if the economy is most efficient with a particular yet unknowable distribution of workers in each sector, analogous to the 500-500 split, there is no reason why government stimulus can't be targeted towards moving to this point more quickly. In your example, this could include the government investing in the machine making industry to give them more capacity, so that they can hire more workers, and to subsidize their pay in order to attract people from the haircutting industry to move over more quickly. In the real world, this would be analogous to the examples I gave in the above post, the government investing in areas that would better society, things that we need more of: teachers, clean energy, better and upgraded infrastructure, research, etc. To suggest that it's better for people to stay unemployed and useless to society, than it is for them to help build a bridge, is utterly absurd. To add to this, there has never been a better time for the government to invest, because interest rates are at record lows. If the government decided to invest when the economy is better and the debt is much lower, then it would be far more expensive for them, and it would reinforce the business cycle, the opposite of what government spending should be, i.e. countercyclical.
The problem with Austrian economics is that it rejects empiricism and it rejects the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_School), no wonder your example has no basis in reality. No wonder Austrian economics is on the fringe of economics academia. In fact, it flies in the face of a century of real economic observations.
The real values of the haircut and the machineproduction service/product is not an artifical/relative numbers. Its a constant number. Even though actual demand/prices/suply changes during the boom-period, this change doesn't change the "real value". If the real price of a haircut is 20$, and the price (just before the boom) is 30$ then the price is supposed to fall. The vicious circle you talk about is actually a positive cycle. Prices are going to fall untill the marginal utility of 1 haircut = the price of 1 haircut. According to your logic the fact that people save instead of consume is bad for the economy. But remember that savings = investments in a free market. These investments made however wont be malinvestments, as their will actually be purchasing power for the consumers in the future to buy the products that comes as a result of the investments.
Hence these money that are not consumed are not wasted. Actually its complteletely the opposite. If money are consumed they are in fact destroyed. If you a consume stuff you don't need wealth is getting a destroyed. That money could have been used on investing in the future.
In this example I assumed that we (the observers) had a godlike-knowledge of the market and was easy able to identifiy the problem. However the government is NOT god. It has absolutely how many employees that are supposed to be in each sector, and what the price of the products is supposed to be. I only make this example so simple so that its easy for us (obserers) to understand the problem. But in real life everything is 10000 more complicated. So the government can't make fiscal policiy that solves the misalloction of labor problem. Only the market can slowly over time fix this problem. But only if you let it work. If you manipulate it with low interest rates, fiscal policiy and other regulations, it's gonna make bad decisions.
A short sample: If inflation is a case of too much money chasing too few goods, why aren’t slumps associated with accelerating rather than decelerating inflation, as the supply of goods falls? Why is there such a strong correlation between nominal and real GDP? Why is there overwhelming evidence that when central banks decide to slow the economy, the economy does indeed slow? And on and on.
THis is what bothers me. He thinks he is in a position to critize the austrian schoo, yet he isn't aware that austrians doesn't disagree with the above. But they actually believe that the above is the problem.
C'mon guys, what is this? Pay your taxes, it's the price for getting the great opportunity to live in this country. As much as I think the government needs to downsized, I will never complain about taxation for that fact.
On February 03 2012 14:10 red_b wrote:
As for this, I find this slightly misleading. I mean, obviously the US has higher health care expenditures. We do have a less healthy/more obese lifestyle in general, right?
EPT![[image loading]](http://soc101.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/health-care-per-capita-total-current-health-care-expenditures-us-and-selected-countries-2006.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://geke.us/GS.001.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/XC98F.jpg)
