|
On February 05 2012 02:53 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 11:55 koreasilver wrote:On February 04 2012 10:55 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Good god your ideals scare the shit out of me red_b. I'd sooner move to Singapore than live in the scandinavian-esque country you're hoping the US becomes. Thankfully it's not possible. This is some of the most nonsensical things I've ever read. Seeing as how many of the Scandinavian nations have been living very well in comparison to the rest of the world for a rather long time, it's actually comical that you'd even throw such a comment that you'd rather live in one of the most restrictive nations of Asia when all that hangs out of your lips is a demented idea of "freedom". + Show Spoiler +I am half-joking of course, but Scandinavia is a wonderful place. Sooooo many attractive women.
I really don't understand why people keep saying liberals are anti-freedom. Every human wants to be free (except some BDSM types). Liberals are people too. We like being free. But we should also realize that to some degree, our desire to be free may infringe on other's freedoms. In that case, we must recognize that we are also flawed, or at least that there are enough of us flawed, as shown by history to necessitate rules, punishments to temper our freedoms. Yay social contract.
It's absolutely ridiculous how polarized that the political arena has become. Like, just read the comments section of any online article pertaining to politics. I read an article about how unemployment was down to 8.3%. A bunch of people complained about "OMG OBAMA FUDGING NUMBERS ELECTION YEAR, DEPORT HIM BACK TO KENYA" or "MISUSE OF STATS". Really, the BLS has been extremely trustworthy and used pretty much the same methods since... the 1960's? (At least for CPI I believe). So why is there a problem now? It actually makes me mad, which I suppose is drawing me into the partisan whirlpool.
It's completely unnecessary to be drawn into the partisan whirlpool, you have to understand you're dealing with a population who quote "A November 2008 poll by Zogby International found that Rush Limbaugh was the most trusted news personality in the nation, garnering 12.5% of poll responses.[21]".
All it takes is self discipline to read rigorous political science journals or at least news sources that rely on empirical data that may even challenge your own core liberal beliefs in some policy arenas.
|
On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Show nested quote +Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them.
Government can't estimate demand, so how come waiting lists are a joke? Where has it been "proven" its a myth?
|
On February 05 2012 03:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. Government can't estimate demand, so how come waiting lists are a joke? Where has it been "proven" its a myth?
http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf
Comprehensive study. If you want to attack it, don't give me a theoretical refutation: that's just as useful as theorycrafting. Show us where the empirical evidence and study methodology is interpreted wrong, and then give us all a source about how European models perform poorly compared to more market-based ones. (Admittedly, the Netherlands has a more market-based reform than Scandinavian countries). Yes public health care has lots of problems. So does private healthcare. And what's the empirical indication that the private market does it better?
Also Scandinavian models do not treat a fewer percentage of their populace. Waiting lines in Scandinavia are just as much an indicator of "poor efficiency" (debunked in the source) as they are of American people not being able to afford healthcare (thereby shortening lines). You'll need evidence for either interpretation, and I've yet to see them for the former.
|
FWIW I did live on my own for a while.
I paid for my own Master's degree. Now I work part time and it is unnecessary for me to have my own place as I telecommute. Being at home allows me to save a fair bit of money. And I doubt that my opinion on self sacrifice will change as it is a deep rooted part of my relationship with God and Im sure you know how people are about that sort of thing.
At any rate my opinions on economics come from 5 years of studying it including a graduate degree in economics at a tier 1 university. Call me naive if you like, but as far as I can tell my positions come from my own analysis of econometric data (esp. labor economics) and yours comes from the limited, anecdotal experience of one person. you may be able to convince yourself that that makes you more knowledgeable on the matter than I but I suspect that will not hold much sway with others.
|
On February 05 2012 04:15 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 03:46 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. Government can't estimate demand, so how come waiting lists are a joke? Where has it been "proven" its a myth? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdfComprehensive study. If you want to attack it, don't give me a theoretical refutation: that's just as useful as theorycrafting. Show us where the empirical evidence and study methodology is interpreted wrong, and then give us all a source about how European models perform poorly compared to more market-based ones. (Admittedly, the Netherlands has a more market-based reform than Scandinavian countries). Yes public health care has lots of problems. So does private healthcare. And what's the empirical indication that the private market does it better? Also Scandinavian models do not treat a fewer percentage of their populace. Waiting lines in Scandinavia are just as much an indicator of "poor efficiency" (debunked in the source) as they are of American people not being able to afford healthcare (thereby shortening lines). You'll need evidence for either interpretation, and I've yet to see them for the former.
Thank you for the link. Gonna respond to it have had time to read it through.
Anyway remember that I never said that the european models are better/worse than the more market based ones. I actually said the veyr opposite could happen, and probably has happened as the US seems to be cost way too much.
But if you look at waiting lists isolated, US should do a much better job at maximzing the (inverse) waiting list / cost ratio.
EDIT: Just skimmed through it. Found this quote:
"Patients in the U.S. face financial burdens, but if insured, they have relatively rapid access to specialized health care services".
Doesn't really contradict my opinion.
EDIT 2: As an example of manipulating data, they use PPP Cost. Not real cost. Still obv. US is more expensive, but its less of a difference.
|
On February 05 2012 04:24 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 04:15 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 03:46 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. Government can't estimate demand, so how come waiting lists are a joke? Where has it been "proven" its a myth? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdfComprehensive study. If you want to attack it, don't give me a theoretical refutation: that's just as useful as theorycrafting. Show us where the empirical evidence and study methodology is interpreted wrong, and then give us all a source about how European models perform poorly compared to more market-based ones. (Admittedly, the Netherlands has a more market-based reform than Scandinavian countries). Yes public health care has lots of problems. So does private healthcare. And what's the empirical indication that the private market does it better? Also Scandinavian models do not treat a fewer percentage of their populace. Waiting lines in Scandinavia are just as much an indicator of "poor efficiency" (debunked in the source) as they are of American people not being able to afford healthcare (thereby shortening lines). You'll need evidence for either interpretation, and I've yet to see them for the former. Thank you for the link. Gonna respond to it have had time to read it through. Anyway remember that I never said that the european models are better/worse than the more market based ones. I actually said the veyr opposite could happen, and probably has happened as the US seems to be cost way too much. But if you look at waiting lists isolated, US should do a much better job at maximzing the (inverse) waiting list / cost ratio.
Hmm, that's interesting. I would like to see a source for that. But can this be explained by the fact that health care in the US is not universal, and the costs drive away lower-income individuals (thereby shortening lines), or do the numbers indicate that something else is in play? If there's a more concrete statistic other than waiting times that indicates that the European models in health care have poorer efficiency and accessibility than those in the United States, I'd be all ears.
EDIT: The point is "if insured". Private markets have done a miserable job at holding down insurance costs. Median costs for the same treatment are twice as much in the US as elsewhere (see the pdf earlier). There are significant private-market distortions when it comes to insurance rates; first, a large pool of individuals are needed for an insurance company to operate. This ensures that only a few big insurance companies dominate the market: the barrier of entry for any aspiring corporation is insurmountable.
Second, most individuals are not medical experts, which is what you often need to discern whether you're overpaying. Health care is not a product that people like to get cheap but lower-quality. This would be a case against government-run healthcare if there were any indication that government run healthcare gives lower overall quality: this may be the case in some countries, but since we'd ideally only adopt the models of the best government-run healthcare systems, we should only consider those in the debate. This preference for quality regardless of price gives private insurers incentive to hike up premiums without actually increasing quality. Individuals can't easily comparison shop healthcare due to medical inexpertise (any kind of private-consulting you might bring up to remedy this will inevitably be incredibly expensive). What this means is that private insurers can make a profit not by providing the better service, but by charging extra for the same service performed in countries with government run healthcare. This is not how ideal private markets operate.
Third, your treatment is their cost. A pre-existing condition will significantly hike up your cost. If you want democratic (aka government) intervention to correct for these, then we have no disagreement. But if you think that the private market alone provides the best service to people?
|
On February 05 2012 04:32 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 04:24 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 04:15 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 03:46 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. Government can't estimate demand, so how come waiting lists are a joke? Where has it been "proven" its a myth? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdfComprehensive study. If you want to attack it, don't give me a theoretical refutation: that's just as useful as theorycrafting. Show us where the empirical evidence and study methodology is interpreted wrong, and then give us all a source about how European models perform poorly compared to more market-based ones. (Admittedly, the Netherlands has a more market-based reform than Scandinavian countries). Yes public health care has lots of problems. So does private healthcare. And what's the empirical indication that the private market does it better? Also Scandinavian models do not treat a fewer percentage of their populace. Waiting lines in Scandinavia are just as much an indicator of "poor efficiency" (debunked in the source) as they are of American people not being able to afford healthcare (thereby shortening lines). You'll need evidence for either interpretation, and I've yet to see them for the former. Thank you for the link. Gonna respond to it have had time to read it through. Anyway remember that I never said that the european models are better/worse than the more market based ones. I actually said the veyr opposite could happen, and probably has happened as the US seems to be cost way too much. But if you look at waiting lists isolated, US should do a much better job at maximzing the (inverse) waiting list / cost ratio. Hmm, that's interesting. I would like to see a source for that. But can this be explained by the fact that health care in the US is not universal, and the costs drive away lower-income individuals (thereby shortening lines), or do the numbers indicate that something else is in play? If there's a more concrete statistic other than waiting times that indicates that the European models in health care have poorer efficiency and accessibility than those in the United States, I'd be all ears.
Im not sure what you want a source of? Why US isn't an efficient health care system (according to my libertarian POV)? For that I posted a link a few pages back. You can prob. find a lot more if you search for US health care at mises.org.
But as I said I can't give you any statistics why european models should do worse (overall from a economical perspective), because thats not really what I think. But I am sure in some ways the more market based health care instiutions has advantages. But to be able to measure that statistically you need to remove all the noise that impacts the statistical values. I don't have any sources for that, sry.
|
On February 05 2012 04:20 red_b wrote:
FWIW I did live on my own for a while.
I paid for my own Master's degree. Now I work part time and it is unnecessary for me to have my own place as I telecommute. Being at home allows me to save a fair bit of money. And I doubt that my opinion on self sacrifice will change as it is a deep rooted part of my relationship with God and Im sure you know how people are about that sort of thing.
At any rate my opinions on economics come from 5 years of studying it including a graduate degree in economics at a tier 1 university. Call me naive if you like, but as far as I can tell my positions come from my own analysis of econometric data (esp. labor economics) and yours comes from the limited, anecdotal experience of one person. you may be able to convince yourself that that makes you more knowledgeable on the matter than I but I suspect that will not hold much sway with others.
I'm not so concerned with people's educations, as it has little bearing on the morals and ensuing ideals upon which people form their economic decisions. Point in case, I too have a similar background and a graduate degree, but have seemingly reached the exact opposite conclusion about what needs to be done with our country.
What interests me more is that you admit your ideal of self-sacrifice for the good of others is rooted in your religious beliefs. I've hinted regularly at this particular phenomenon throughout this thread. Namely, that people tend to attribute the successes of their country to the socioeconomic system most closely aligned with their specific set of morals.
|
On February 05 2012 04:20 red_b wrote:
FWIW I did live on my own for a while.
I paid for my own Master's degree. Now I work part time and it is unnecessary for me to have my own place as I telecommute. Being at home allows me to save a fair bit of money. And I doubt that my opinion on self sacrifice will change as it is a deep rooted part of my relationship with God and Im sure you know how people are about that sort of thing.
At any rate my opinions on economics come from 5 years of studying it including a graduate degree in economics at a tier 1 university. Call me naive if you like, but as far as I can tell my positions come from my own analysis of econometric data (esp. labor economics) and yours comes from the limited, anecdotal experience of one person. you may be able to convince yourself that that makes you more knowledgeable on the matter than I but I suspect that will not hold much sway with others.
People should leave their mom and dad's house when they are capable of doing so. It is not natural for grown children to be living off their parents.
Did you ever find a reference to god in any of your text books or lectures on economics?
|
On February 05 2012 04:41 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 04:32 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 04:24 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 04:15 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 03:46 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. Government can't estimate demand, so how come waiting lists are a joke? Where has it been "proven" its a myth? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdfComprehensive study. If you want to attack it, don't give me a theoretical refutation: that's just as useful as theorycrafting. Show us where the empirical evidence and study methodology is interpreted wrong, and then give us all a source about how European models perform poorly compared to more market-based ones. (Admittedly, the Netherlands has a more market-based reform than Scandinavian countries). Yes public health care has lots of problems. So does private healthcare. And what's the empirical indication that the private market does it better? Also Scandinavian models do not treat a fewer percentage of their populace. Waiting lines in Scandinavia are just as much an indicator of "poor efficiency" (debunked in the source) as they are of American people not being able to afford healthcare (thereby shortening lines). You'll need evidence for either interpretation, and I've yet to see them for the former. Thank you for the link. Gonna respond to it have had time to read it through. Anyway remember that I never said that the european models are better/worse than the more market based ones. I actually said the veyr opposite could happen, and probably has happened as the US seems to be cost way too much. But if you look at waiting lists isolated, US should do a much better job at maximzing the (inverse) waiting list / cost ratio. Hmm, that's interesting. I would like to see a source for that. But can this be explained by the fact that health care in the US is not universal, and the costs drive away lower-income individuals (thereby shortening lines), or do the numbers indicate that something else is in play? If there's a more concrete statistic other than waiting times that indicates that the European models in health care have poorer efficiency and accessibility than those in the United States, I'd be all ears. Im not sure what you want a source of? Why US isn't an efficient health care system (according to my libertarian POV)? For that I posted a link a few pages back. You can prob. find a lot more if you search for US health care at mises.org. But as I said I can't give you any statistics why european models should do worse (overall from a economical perspective), because thats not really what I think. But I am sure in some ways the more market based health care instiutions has advantages. But to be able to measure that statistically you need to remove all the noise that impacts the statistical values. I don't have any sources for that, sry.
Okay, a few responses. This is in response to your post from 4 pages back, and your only post on that page, so I'm assuming that's what you're referring to.
"So what happens when a company displays bad behaviour to their customers to maximise short-term profits".
First, companies will pull all kinds of tricks to squeeze out competition, ethically or otherwise. This has happened for centuries across all continents in history. The "natural selection" process doesn't only select for quality. Second, when there are low barriers of entry to the private market and large degrees of consumer choice, then great. Markets work much better than government-provided services in this case.
This reasoning breaks down when there are high barriers of entry. One does not simply create a health insurance company. You'd need a large pool of participants, for one. Good luck finding a few thousand people to put their health insurance in an untested company's hands. Second, existing insurance companies can jack down prices for a loss to run any startup company out of business wherever the startup business is located, if it starts becoming a possible threat.
Insurance companies do not operate the way regular companies do. They create a large part of their profit by charging more than the average cost of each health care procedure, and then skimming the money off of that. A large part of insurance company income does not actually come from a service provided.
Think it's easy to compare quality? Tell me whether Blue Cross or Amerishield (or any two insurance companies that provide wherever you live) provides better cost/quality on cyst removal from the scrotum.
People are not going to get worse procedures in the United States. That's not the point. The point is that people will get much more expensive ones for the same quality.
Private markets are generally much better than government-run ones. But there are multiple reasons why the standard private market incentives that make them work so well do not apply to the healthcare industry.
Finally, keep in mind that "government-run healthcare" is really democratically run. Healthcare is a service that all people have a stake in, and so people tend to pay a lot of attention when voting. This provides incentives for office-holders. Now this process doesn't work perfectly. Not by a long shot. But Europe is doing quite well when it comes to distributing health care. So really, why not? If the US gets a C- in its current incarnation of health care, the best European systems get a B, it should be a no-brainer to first upgrade to the B, and then test out possible schemes to get you to "A" level healthcare (on a statewide basis or otherwise).
But for a broader critique of libertarianism: markets work very well because of their natural selection process; the good companies survive and bad ones don't. This does well,but why do Libertarians think that this works perfectly? There's a similar process on human evolution. It's called natural selection. That process has certainly selected, in the very very long run, for traits other than perfection. Why should markets have some kind of mystical power?
|
On February 04 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 06:58 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:41 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:16 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:00 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:48 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:46 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:40 Kiarip wrote:
[quote]
That's a ton of trash.
The money that he pays that goes to public health-care does absolutely nothing for his ability to participate in the marketplace and make hard-earned money that he's got.
Just because some people want a free-hand out and don't understand how prices work when government starts pouring on the money doesn't mean that the government all of a sudden has the power to ignore the constitution.
Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare. By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong. I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you. No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim! I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege. Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying. and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege. It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore. Well I dunno some of the definitions are this the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled & something that one may properly claim as due and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is. There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else.
I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right.
|
On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Show nested quote +Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them.
I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school.
I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you.
|
I think i am gonna vote ron paul regardless on if my vote counts, seems like hes the only candidate with the right ideas on his mind
|
On February 05 2012 05:02 SerpentFlame wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 04:41 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 04:32 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 04:24 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 04:15 SerpentFlame wrote:On February 05 2012 03:46 Hider wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. Government can't estimate demand, so how come waiting lists are a joke? Where has it been "proven" its a myth? http://www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdfComprehensive study. If you want to attack it, don't give me a theoretical refutation: that's just as useful as theorycrafting. Show us where the empirical evidence and study methodology is interpreted wrong, and then give us all a source about how European models perform poorly compared to more market-based ones. (Admittedly, the Netherlands has a more market-based reform than Scandinavian countries). Yes public health care has lots of problems. So does private healthcare. And what's the empirical indication that the private market does it better? Also Scandinavian models do not treat a fewer percentage of their populace. Waiting lines in Scandinavia are just as much an indicator of "poor efficiency" (debunked in the source) as they are of American people not being able to afford healthcare (thereby shortening lines). You'll need evidence for either interpretation, and I've yet to see them for the former. Thank you for the link. Gonna respond to it have had time to read it through. Anyway remember that I never said that the european models are better/worse than the more market based ones. I actually said the veyr opposite could happen, and probably has happened as the US seems to be cost way too much. But if you look at waiting lists isolated, US should do a much better job at maximzing the (inverse) waiting list / cost ratio. Hmm, that's interesting. I would like to see a source for that. But can this be explained by the fact that health care in the US is not universal, and the costs drive away lower-income individuals (thereby shortening lines), or do the numbers indicate that something else is in play? If there's a more concrete statistic other than waiting times that indicates that the European models in health care have poorer efficiency and accessibility than those in the United States, I'd be all ears. Im not sure what you want a source of? Why US isn't an efficient health care system (according to my libertarian POV)? For that I posted a link a few pages back. You can prob. find a lot more if you search for US health care at mises.org. But as I said I can't give you any statistics why european models should do worse (overall from a economical perspective), because thats not really what I think. But I am sure in some ways the more market based health care instiutions has advantages. But to be able to measure that statistically you need to remove all the noise that impacts the statistical values. I don't have any sources for that, sry. Okay, a few responses. This is in response to your post from 4 pages back, and your only post on that page, so I'm assuming that's what you're referring to. "So what happens when a company displays bad behaviour to their customers to maximise short-term profits". First, companies will pull all kinds of tricks to squeeze out competition, ethically or otherwise. This has happened for centuries across all continents in history. The "natural selection" process doesn't only select for quality. Second, when there are low barriers of entry to the private market and large degrees of consumer choice, then great. Markets work much better than government-provided services in this case. This reasoning breaks down when there are high barriers of entry. One does not simply create a health insurance company. You'd need a large pool of participants, for one. Good luck finding a few thousand people to put their health insurance in an untested company's hands. Second, existing insurance companies can jack down prices for a loss to run any startup company out of business wherever the startup business is located, if it starts becoming a possible threat. Insurance companies do not operate the way regular companies do. They create a large part of their profit by charging more than the average cost of each health care procedure, and then skimming the money off of that. A large part of insurance company income does not actually come from a service provided. Think it's easy to compare quality? Tell me whether Blue Cross or Amerishield (or any two insurance companies that provide wherever you live) provides better cost/quality on cyst removal from the scrotum. People are not going to get worse procedures in the United States. That's not the point. The point is that people will get much more expensive ones for the same quality. Private markets are generally much better than government-run ones. But there are multiple reasons why the standard private market incentives that make them work so well do not apply to the healthcare industry. But for a broader critique of libertarianism: markets work very well because of their natural selection process; the good companies survive and bad ones don't. This does well,but why do Libertarians think that this works perfectly? There's a similar process on human evolution. It's called natural selection. That process has certainly selected, in the very very long run, for traits other than perfection. Why should markets have some kind of mystical power?
Your entire post is moot because the healthcare and insurance industry is in bed with the government.
As your example for having a barrier to entering into the insurance business, of course it would take huge capital to form an insurance company but that is a drop in the bucket compared to the regulations and red tape it takes to enter into the market. Insurance companies lobby the government to put up these barriers so that there is no competition. Libertarians believe that if government did not regulate the market participants then the most competitive, well run companies would be successful. The way it is now, the ones spending $4.5 billion(insurance companies) and $4.2 billlion(healthcare companies) lobbying the government are the only possible market participants because that is what they want and they pay for the law to reflect this.
|
On February 05 2012 04:57 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Point in case, I too have a similar background and a graduate degree, but have seemingly reached the exact opposite conclusion about what needs to be done with our country.
which degree in which field...
|
On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you.
I honestly detest the people that link liberal with being a leech. If you understood the Canadian political landscape whatsoever, youd realize the vast majority of the population is liberal, at least soically. The most variance is seen when you look at peoples fiscal beliefs. Most everyone is barely off center. The statement most liberal people struggle and fail at life cant be factually true, as MOST people are liberal, and our unemployment numbers arent all too high. Ontario is a Liberal party bastion, and is the most populated and overall productive province in the country.
Most liberals dont vote for social policies out of self benefit. Somehow theres a liberal majority here, but only a small % of people use unemployment, or use the healthcare systems resources. My family votes liberal, yet none of us have ever used unemployment, we have used the healthcare system, but definitely for less than what weve paid into it, yet we still are liberals. All of your arguments have been purely idealogical though, and I dont expect any of them to be any different. The best you can come up with, is i think my liberal friends suck at life, or I want a shed more than the health and well being of my countrymates. You dont actually have any proof that your system would function better than the current one. Its easy to do this when the system you rip on has provided you with the ability to live a safe, comfortable life. Funny how that works.
|
On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you.
So liberals have failed at life and want everything handed to them and conservatives did have everything handed to them and didn't actually have to work for any of it. Where does that put the average joe that worked hard to get where he is?
I honestly detest the people that link liberal with being a leech. If you understood the Canadian political landscape whatsoever, youd realize the vast majority of the population is liberal, at least soically. The most variance is seen when you look at peoples fiscal beliefs. Most everyone is barely off center. The statement most liberal people struggle and fail at life cant be factually true, as MOST people are liberal, and our unemployment numbers arent all too high. Ontario is a Liberal party bastion, and is the most populated and overall productive province in the country.
Most liberals dont vote for social policies out of self benefit. Somehow theres a liberal majority here, but only a small % of people use unemployment, or use the healthcare systems resources. My family votes liberal, yet none of us have ever used unemployment, we have used the healthcare system, but definitely for less than what weve paid into it, yet we still are liberals. All of your arguments have been purely idealogical though, and I dont expect any of them to be any different. The best you can come up with, is i think my liberal friends suck at life, or I want a shed more than the health and well being of my countrymates. You dont actually have any proof that your system would function better than the current one. Its easy to do this when the system you rip on has provided you with the ability to live a safe, comfortable life. Funny how that works.
Don't worry too much about it. That line has been used by conservatives for ages (at least here in the U.S.) that have had everything handed to them through little to no work of their own and can't comprehend that life isn't fair to everyone and that some people can work damn hard in life and still get screwed by forces outside of their control.
And that's just how conservatives do their thing. They sit comfortable with all of the wealth they didn't actually earn, never having to go through even remotely difficult times, and criticize those of us who actually had to struggle and experience the failures of their ideas. They're completely out of touch with reality and have little clue about how the world actually works.
Are we having fun with stereotypes? Have I made my point yet?
|
On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you.
You cannot conceivably be serious.
|
On February 05 2012 05:03 Kiarip wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 07:06 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:58 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:49 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:41 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 06:16 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 06:00 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:51 kwizach wrote:On February 04 2012 05:48 Kiarip wrote:On February 04 2012 05:46 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Actually, his post is factual. You, on the other hand, consistently base your posts on ideology rather than reality, as red_b himself showed in your exchange on healthcare.
By the way, Kiarip, since you never replied to my last post in our previous exchange, I take that as an acknowledgment from your part that your initial statement, which I rebutted, was indeed wrong. I replied to it. The "right to health-care" as you defined it wasn't a right, if you would have used quotations you could have avoided the misunderstanding which resulted in you arguing semantics, but yeah you're right in the fact that we're done with that now, because like I stated, I have no interest in arguing about semantics with you. No, you did not reply to it, and that's not what we were arguing about: we were arguing about your assertion that the rights of healthcare providers would be violated, while YOU were trying to derail the discussion into a debate about semantics and what constitutes a right. Nice to see you're still trying to avoid having to defend your claim! I said that a right to healthcare would violate the rights of the health-care providers. However, since there's no actual right to healthcare anywhere right now I can't give you an example of the rights of health-care providers being violated, because there's no such right. I can only give you an example of the risks and expenses being socialized amongst the general population as a result of the government trying to deliver on their promise of this privilege. Erm, at no point in our discussion did I ask for an example of the rights of healthcare providers being violated today. Did you originally stop replying to me because you couldn't rewrite our discussion when it was still going on? In my last posts I defined very precisely what kind of right to healthcare the people you replied to were referring to, and I explained why it would not violate the rights of the healthcare providers. I consistently refused to let you derail the discussion into a debate about what constitutes a right or about taxation. You then stopped replying. and once you finally described what you were talking I agreed that this doesn't infringe on rights of health-care providers, because what you were describing wasn't a right, but a government guaranteed privilege. It had been defined in the original posts you decided to reply to as well. It was a right. See? You're trying to argue semantics again. You seem to forget that I quoted the Merriam-Webster entry for "right", which supported my (and the other poster's) position and invalidated your claim that it would not qualify as a "right". That's probably one of the reasons you stopped replying - you couldn't even argue semantics anymore. Well I dunno some of the definitions are this the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled & something that one may properly claim as due and this doesn't quite sound like what socialized medicine actually is. There you go - Kiarip uses a straw man again. The words "socialized medicine" never came out of my mouth. You tried arguing semantics when confronted with the fact that your original statement was invalid: you started to argue the "right to healthcare" we were referring could not be called a "right". The definitions featured in the Merriam-Webster dictionary proved you wrong. Don't try to switch the subject of the debate again, to "socialized medicine" or anything else. I only called it socialized medicine because the "right to healthcare" as defined in that video didn't at all fit the definition of a what a right is according to Webster dictionary, so I don't know what else to call it. you can stop looking silly now... This discussion has been long finished. "right to healthcare" isn't a right. Freedom of speech is a right. Pursuit of happiness is a right, freedom to not be detained without being provided a lawyer is a right... healthcare can't be a right.
It can be a right because "rights" are subject to interpretation even in the most extreme case of political free speech against the government. Not even that is an absolute right and is subject to content, place and wartime restrictions or modifications
The "right" of congress to regulate interstate commerce can give rise to health care law, regardless of whether you wish to frame the debate in the context of being a "right to healthcare" which in the legal world is probably not even going to be the central battle in the Supreme Court. There are no absolute rights, and because there are no absolute rights all rights are up for degrees of scrutiny, interpretation and manipulation in areas of how Congress may successfully pass laws within its given "rights".
|
On February 05 2012 05:32 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2012 05:08 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 03:26 Stratos_speAr wrote:On February 05 2012 02:51 Rabbet wrote:On February 05 2012 02:45 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:
Red_b, you and I are simply never going to agree. You preach the values of selflessness, and I support the complete opposite, rational and ethical egoism. It's no surprise that we're going to disagree on the governing of people then.
Anyway I'm genuinely curious about a few things. You mentioned that you rely primarily on the support of your parents still: Do you think your views will remain the same when you are self sufficient and providing for your own family? It's easy to underestimate how much going into the "real world" might affect one's views. In my case, I completely changed when I started having to provide for my girlfriend and I during the 2009 economic downturn. With out a doubt people grow up a lot when they leave the cocoon of the family unit, it is no different for political and social views. I would have been the one arguing against conservatism when I was still living with my mom and dad, but life experience changes you. This helps explain Red_b's mentality. That "growing up" goes both ways. I was a staunch (fiscal) conservative until I went out and experienced life. Then I realized how naive and foolish fiscal conservative ideals can sound. And don't even get me started on social conservatives. Social conservatism in America often just boils down to racism, homophobia, and religious brainwashing. It's absolutely sickening. I actually find it kind of amusing that you think that more people start to "come to their senses" and think on a more conservative line when they get real world experience when I've found that the overwhelming majority of conservatives I've met are either completely sheltered students that have never had to work a day in their life or those that have been well off their entire life and have rarely (if ever) had to struggle, either fiscally or against social adversity. Of course, we know that this isn't actually true and that there are plenty from the lower classes that are both liberal and conservative, so how about you stop being such a condescending prick? Scandinavian model seems to be working? Any sources for that? If the only reason prices are relatively low is becaus waiting lists are long and the quality mediocore, then thats not really a good argument for scandi health care. It's already been repeatedly mentioned about how long waiting lists and crappy care are both myths with very little actual basis. Stop mentioning them. I agree, most "liberal" people I know have struggled and failed at life and as a result turn to the government to take care of them. Some of these people were staunch conservatives as well. I have to admit I have not met many students that were conservative, they usually want most or all of their tuition paid for by the government or pretend to not be able to find jobs after they are done school. I don't think it is proper to be calling people names, I am going to report you. So liberals have failed at life and want everything handed to them and conservatives did have everything handed to them and didn't actually have to work for any of it. Where does that put the average joe that worked hard to get where he is?
That´s a nice talking point, if you are Ann Coulter and want to sell books by stirring up things a bit I guess.
My interpretation of why it´s so hard to implement european health care in the US is the lack of understanding and/or complete disregard of a little, yet powerful word called solidarity. Probably because it is seen as solidarity = collectivist = socialist = communist = tyranny. In this exact order and without major differences between those words.
I am not saying they should implement a similiar one in the US, let them live with a few rich and lots of working poor and an eroding middle class - they have the freedom to do so, but what I am saying is that one side of the political spectrum knows how to win the race for who dictates what´s what.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
