Does anybody have a logical conservative argument against socialized healthcare?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Prices go up each year because of a combination of inflation and increasing technology. The fact that we can keep a corpse alive for years if we try happens to cost money. It doesn't help that the money for the people who don't have insurance has to come from somewhere.

It would be refreshing if the Right would flat out say that if you can't afford treatment you deserve to die and leave it at that. Instead they support all the things that muck up our system like the idea that we don't let people die, they go to the ER. Apparently ER money does come out of no where and nobody pays for it.

Sean Renaud:
Prices go up each year because of a combination of inflation and increasing technology. The fact that we can keep a corpse alive for years if we try happens to cost money. It doesn't help that the money for the people who don't have insurance has to come from somewhere.

It would be refreshing if the Right would flat out say that if you can't afford treatment you deserve to die and leave it at that. Instead they support all the things that muck up our system like the idea that we don't let people die, they go to the ER. Apparently ER money does come out of no where and nobody pays for it.

New technology drives the prices of the older technology down, the new technology is expensive at first but the price is driven down by people buying technology at a high price for the cutting edge. If this wasn't the case the prices for computers would be completely different.

The inflation caused by government spending is causing the price of medical care to go up. The law that forces hospitals to to eat their losses and force price increases drives hospitals in poor areas out of business and hurts the middle class through medical insurance rate hikes and coverage cuts. There was a time that charity hospitals were able to take care of emergency care for the poor but your busy body friends have caused more harm than good.

aelreth:
The inflation caused by government spending is causing the price of medical care to go up. The law that forces hospitals to to eat their losses and force price increases drives hospitals in poor areas out of business and hurts the middle class through medical insurance rate hikes and coverage cuts. There was a time that charity hospitals were able to take care of emergency care for the poor but your busy body friends have caused more harm than good.

That's not true, both economically and as a whole. Wiki has a pretty good entry on it but basically it can be summed up really short as being caused by prices increasing.

Hospitals eating their losses is caused by a lack of a model to fund healthcare collectively in the US. Either a collective state-run health insurance or a heavily regulated mandatory private insurance would fix this problem pretty much permanently. Or in other words: small government conservatism caused it. Lack of regulations.

My country has the latter for a model, and less than one percent of people are uninsured, mostly drug users, homeless people and illegal aliens. And those don't pay their dues no matter what, because they can't, so the small amount of losses from that is covered by the state no trouble.

Blablahb:

aelreth:
The inflation caused by government spending is causing the price of medical care to go up. The law that forces hospitals to to eat their losses and force price increases drives hospitals in poor areas out of business and hurts the middle class through medical insurance rate hikes and coverage cuts. There was a time that charity hospitals were able to take care of emergency care for the poor but your busy body friends have caused more harm than good.

That's not true, both economically and as a whole. Wiki has a pretty good entry on it but basically it can be summed up really short as being caused by prices increasing.

Hospitals eating their losses is caused by a lack of a model to fund healthcare collectively in the US. Either a collective state-run health insurance or a heavily regulated mandatory private insurance would fix this problem pretty much permanently. Or in other words: small government conservatism caused it. Lack of regulations.

My country has the latter for a model, and less than one percent of people are uninsured, mostly drug users, homeless people and illegal aliens. And those don't pay their dues no matter what, because they can't, so the small amount of losses from that is covered by the state no trouble.

Your timeline is wrong, the first act of big government in medical insurance in the USA began with FDR with the deduction for medical coverage, the second step started with the great society specifically medicare & medicaid.

After the great society inflation & medical care costs went through the roof.

Your talking points are 50 years off!

by the way the reason why the economy is in bad shape is quite simple, low interest rates.

Low interests rates stimulate demand and cause people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do. It also allowed real estate prices to climb to out of control levels. Followed up by the actions of "The Banking Queen" a real estate bubble quickly came and went.

However consumer saving is in the toilet. Prices are going higher even though the government is saying there is no inflation.

BiscuitTrouser:
I have no idea what youre talking about... was this a mispost? Who said anything about taking away freedom... Who said these labels... was it me? What? Im really confused. I never even said it was a mystery... this post confuses me... it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Socialised health care isnt about freedom if instituting it is democratic.

In my country we voted for socialized healthcare and we voted to pay for it. I dont see how anyone was denied any freedoms there.

My issue is if youre going to propose a solution at least go and do one that might work, even if some people REALLY HATE it, rather than one that definitely wont just so those same people dont REALLY hate it and then let people decide. Obama care is a little bit shit. Thats all im saying on the matter and i think youre super projecting onto me. You seem a liiiiittle too eager to use the "ITS TAKING MY FREEDOMS!" card. Also please notice the thread doesnt say "IN AMERICA" so when i said i liked socialized healthcare i meant here in the UK. What you guys do is up to you, i just think Obama should have presented a better idea.

You were attacking the opposition in the U.S. and I provided a list of labels that are applied to them, yet you seemed to insist the President is a mediator reaching across the aisle to work with these people who "don't take prisoners". You understand nothing of my country's politics and believe what you hear. That was a dose of reality of what non-supporters have to endure under this regime.

Arguments against socialized healthcare: Socialism takes liberty away. That's an argument. You appear to state that you don't care how much people hate and oppose something, what matters is if it works. That's an indefensible position for progress and cannot simultaneously protect freedom because it can be ignored.

Simply, the vote of your people was part of the free process, but the policy of socialized health care has disputes with freedom, be it in funding or administration.

AgedGrunt:

You were attacking the opposition in the U.S. and I provided a list of labels that are applied to them, yet you seemed to insist the President is a mediator reaching across the aisle to work with these people who "don't take prisoners". You understand nothing of my country's politics and believe what you hear. That was a dose of reality of what non-supporters have to endure under this regime.

Arguments against socialized healthcare: Socialism takes liberty away. That's an argument. You appear to state that you don't care how much people hate and oppose something, what matters is if it works. That's an indefensible position for progress and cannot simultaneously protect freedom because it can be ignored.

Simply, the vote of your people was part of the free process, but the policy of socialized health care has disputes with freedom, be it in funding or administration.

I was saying this:

1. Your current system is terrible. More money per head than most others.
2. I understand that some people are going to hate some things no matter what. Attempting to create a faux middle ground to try and appease them is silly if it means deviating from what YOU think will really work. Thats dishonest.

When i say "Present an idea" i mean an idea to vote upon. I state that i dont care how much SOME people hate and oppose something if the majority are sure it will work and desire it. That aint perfect but thats democracy. I also think presenting an idea you dont think is ideal is silly. Obama should have presented a real working idea, no matter how vocal the opposition and really seen if a majority voted for it. I never stated people shouldnt be able to choose their healthcare system.

Socialism takes liberty away isnt a valid argument for this discussion. TOTAL socialism doesnt work. I dont think so. Socialised MEDICINE does. If we are discussing a socialist/capitalist fusion in a single area poking holes in the theory of a total socialist country doesnt really mean anything.

If we the people decide we would rather have the freedom to universal healthcare cover instead of our freedom of lower taxes thats our choice. It would be a greater denial of freedom to deny us the ability to choose our system of government and to choose who certain areas are managed.

aelreth:
Your timeline is wrong, the first act of big government in medical insurance in the USA began with FDR with the deduction for medical coverage, the second step started with the great society specifically medicare & medicaid.
After the great society inflation & medical care costs went through the roof.
Your talking points are 50 years off!

I don't see what that has to do with the discussion? Obvious demand is going to rise if at first, most people don't have acces to healthcare, and later on they do. That's a natural thing, a symptom of society advancing as a whole. That's not something you can describe as a bad consequence.

I don't see how it relates to the present situation though. The US is paying so much for healthcare because of deregulation. So many people can't afford health insurance, or get scammed out of coverage because there's no regulations against that, that costs increase. If someone can't afford treatment, their condition gets worse, and by the time they can be covered by a government program, the cost for fixing whatever's wrong with them will be a lot higher.

And like I said: Either goverment-run universal healthcare, or heavily regulated public-private mandatory insurance will fix this problem permanently.

aelreth:
by the way the reason why the economy is in bad shape is quite simple, low interest rates.
Low interests rates stimulate demand and cause people to do things that they otherwise wouldn't do. It also allowed real estate prices to climb to out of control levels. Followed up by the actions of "The Banking Queen" a real estate bubble quickly came and went.
However consumer saving is in the toilet. Prices are going higher even though the government is saying there is no inflation.

That small government conservatism and the deregulation they insisted on caused the Credit Crisis is pretty well-known, yes.

Other things also play a role though, like the government policies being aimed mostly at encouraging spending, just like conservatives want, while in the long run that's a really bad policy because for one thing it inflates your currency, and for another, people will not have many savings and lots of debts, effectively stopping purchasing power from growing over time. Can't eat your cake and have it.

Plus of course income disparity in the US has been allowed to climb to such levels that many Americans don't have any savings because they're too poor for that. That part of the US economy going to shit and not recovering in a hurry is because that money went to tax cuts and ways to make money for millionaires. Once there and slushfunded away to Switserland, it's obviously of little use to the economy of the US anymore.

Blablahb:
I don't see what that has to do with the discussion? Obvious demand is going to rise if at first, most people don't have acces to healthcare, and later on they do. That's a natural thing, a symptom of society advancing as a whole. That's not something you can describe as a bad consequence.

I don't see how it relates to the present situation though. The US is paying so much for healthcare because of deregulation. So many people can't afford health insurance, or get scammed out of coverage because there's no regulations against that, that costs increase. If someone can't afford treatment, their condition gets worse, and by the time they can be covered by a government program, the cost for fixing whatever's wrong with them will be a lot higher.

Really? You said that technology creates inflation. Yet you contradicted yourself. People are free to use the older cheaper treatment that likely has the same cost or less than immediately using the brand new treatment. This would be the case if they paid out of pocket.

But they don't.

They have insurance.

Since they don't see the increased cost they will always ask for the more expensive treatment especially since insurance will cover it. They don't have a pricing guide.

The insurance agency thus will see an increased cost (since people are utilizing new technology they are picking more expensive options).

There is no such thing as a free lunch and the insurance company since they can't operate at a loss (unlike the US government) they have to increase revenue & cut costs.

What would you buy on steam if you didn't see a price tag and your company provided you with a service to let you have access to them? The reason why you are prudent with your purchases is because you actively see what you are doing.

We have not had a free market in insurance for a long time, every state government creates multiple regulations and requirements that insurance companies, doctors & patients but pay for through increased costs. Prior to LBJ and the states writing into law via regulation & legislation, out of pocket costs were the norm. Costs were low. The doctors came to see us not the other way around.

Before this reworking of our economy less than 45 million people had no access to healthcare, many of them are 20-30 year olds, illegal aliens & yes those poor people that fell through the cracks.

Blablahb:
That small government conservatism and the deregulation they insisted on caused the Credit Crisis is pretty well-known, yes.

Other things also play a role though, like the government policies being aimed mostly at encouraging spending, just like conservatives want, while in the long run that's a really bad policy because for one thing it inflates your currency, and for another, people will not have many savings and lots of debts, effectively stopping purchasing power from growing over time. Can't eat your cake and have it.

Plus of course income disparity in the US has been allowed to climb to such levels that many Americans don't have any savings because they're too poor for that. That part of the US economy going to shit and not recovering in a hurry is because that money went to tax cuts and ways to make money for millionaires. Once there and slushfunded away to Switserland, it's obviously of little use to the economy of the US anymore.

What gave you the idea that Bush 43 was a conservative? He lowered the interest rates in his first term so he would avoid a recession caused by the end of the dot com boom and bust. His VP said Defecits don't matter.

He promoted home ownership, the way this was done was simple the taxpayers would make your downpayment. We call that renting in conservative speak. Then combined with the stupidity of the banking queen of blocking any reform on Fannie Mae the bust was completely predicatable and avoidable.

When his first treasury secretary ran the numbers on the Iraq war (where in 2000 he promised no nation building) he fired the treasury secretary because they accurately predicted the cost of the iraq war.

If you consider me a conservative or bush 43 as a conservative you should correct your paradigm. Bush grew government more and faster than clinton. He infringed on liberties and what liberties he did infringe on, Obama expanded those infringements.

BiscuitTrouser:
1. Your current system is terrible. More money per head than most others.
2. I understand that some people are going to hate some things no matter what. Attempting to create a faux middle ground to try and appease them is silly if it means deviating from what YOU think will really work. Thats dishonest.

Obama should have presented a real working idea, no matter how vocal the opposition and really seen if a majority voted for it. I never stated people shouldnt be able to choose their healthcare system.

Socialism takes liberty away isnt a valid argument for this discussion. TOTAL socialism doesnt work. I dont think so. Socialised MEDICINE does. If we are discussing a socialist/capitalist fusion in a single area poking holes in the theory of a total socialist country doesnt really mean anything.

If we the people decide we would rather have the freedom to universal healthcare cover instead of our freedom of lower taxes thats our choice. It would be a greater denial of freedom to deny us the ability to choose our system of government and to choose who certain areas are managed.

1) That's not an argument for socialized healthcare. It's an argument the vast majority would agree with and we'd all like change. The roots are obscured and buried under bureaucracy, corporations and money. The worst thing we can do is exonerate the government for failing the people and then hand those crooks full control.
2) Truth, yet the U.S. is currently too divided to accomplish much of anything beneficial.

Regarding real, working ideas, those have been extinct in the White House and Congress for years, yet tons of people rushed to support Obamacare and still do. They didn't read anything, they didn't even know what they were voting for. That's not choosing anything, people just clicked "Like".

And yes, dissolving liberty is a valid argument here, as it is anywhere it happens. Socialized health care fundamentally changes industry, business and practice of professionals as well as the treatment and care provided to people. While technically a government has ability, it is entirely different to put into a place a system that forces these changes and requires participation (which is not free).

If I don't want to make use of the health care system I should not have to, nor should I need to pay for others who do. That's what liberty is, it says "No thanks, I can take care of myself."

AgedGrunt:

If I don't want to make use of the health care system I should not have to, nor should I need to pay for others who do. That's what liberty is, it says "No thanks, I can take care of myself."

As someone who doesnt own a car i feel much the same way about roads. In society we pay for things via taxes we will never use on the basis that, in future, others will pay for our things. You pay for road repairs one town over. They pay for yours in the foreseeable future. A LOT of your society has a socialist system implemented. Is it possible to avoid road tax and manage your own road privately? Is it possible for me to avoid all taxes about the war?

Liberty is lovely but unfortunately total liberty and democracy physically cannot co exist outside a hivemind. The majority vote and the majority implement taxes. If a single expenditure of taxes doesnt help EVERYONE who paid those taxes then they have paid for something for someone else. Ive yet to see a government that didnt, in ANYTHING, ever use tax payer money on something that didnt benefit the entire country directly and immediately that paid said taxes. That means NO government buildings or roads in some states, since other states do not benefit, NO government schemes that arnt EVERYWHERE and NO government institutions that dont assist ALL AND that ALL absolutely require.

Democracy isnt perfect. If you want total liberty i think youre looking for an Anarchy. Democracy is majority rule. Unless you share the majority stance and situation in EVERYTHING youre going to lose some liberty im afraid. Youre going to be paying for things you dont want to pay for.

AgedGrunt:

The CDC can take steps but vaccines should only be required in extreme cases, such as that happened with small pox or something like the black plague.

Do you have any idea how infection control and vaccination work? You probably have these vaccinations: Mumps, Measles, Rubella (commonly known as the MMR jab), meningitis, tetanus, TB and if you've ever been abroad a host of other vaccinations (e.g. malaria). Should these just be ignored because they aren't as scary as small pox?

Have you any idea how deadly the flu is? Just look up how many people die in the US every year from what is one of the most common viruses we come into contact with. Should we not bother with vaccination programs because it's not a scary infection? How would you feel if your parents/grandparents caught it and died because 'vaccinations aren't needed'?

Look up herd immunity, it's the only reason diseases like small pox are non existent; immunise a large chunk of the population and they can't carry the infection - if it can't survive in a host it can't spread and the wider public is now protected.

You only get your MMR jab at (iirc) 6-8 months old, before that you are at risk of catching it; only reason it's not an epidemic among newborns is because everyone they come into contact with is already immune. If nobody is carrying it then they can't give it to the baby and they are safe until they're vaccinated.

Recently however there has been a spike in the number of cases reported because idiots think that vaccinations aren't safe/needed and don't get their kids protected. They say things like "I never got them vaccinated and they never caught it" as if that somehow makes it ok to risk other people; having an un-vaccinated person creates a gap in the armour protecting the vulnerable, leaving them wide open to catching the disease and suffering through some random persons ignorance. That's why schools nowadays demand that kids are vaccinated before attending, they can't risk someone spreading diseases around.

Do you see why paying for vaccinations is a horrible idea?

And I really don't care what you think of private medicine. Government is almost universally scrutinized, detested and dreaded by citizens. To have a fundamental desire to take something as important as health care and say, you know what, you do everything else wrong, but we want you to run this system that treats our bodies and puts us on drugs, we trust you to do that -- takes extraordinary levels of density. You're licensing care of your body to people who are not medical professionals and make the rest of your life miserable; why?

I'll bold this so it's one hundred percent clear:

Politicians DO NOT RUN hospitals, DOCTORS do

When you put healthcare in government hands they don't decide anything related to what doctors do, they don't decide the drugs, the diagnosis, etc. What they decide is the budget, nothing else.

A family friend had to get off a cruise at Hawaii due to some condition; in and out in 1 night with basic tests. UK that would be nothing, if he hadn't had a travel insurance policy it would have cost him $10 GRAND for treatment. You're seriously telling me a system that charges more than the Ritz hotel is better?

That is all a socialised system would do, tell hospitals they can't charge whatever the fuck they want because they wont pay for it. They get a budget and they stick to it or the administrators get replaced, same as any business.

aelreth:
Really? You said that technology creates inflation. Yet you contradicted yourself. People are free to use the older cheaper treatment that likely has the same cost or less than immediately using the brand new treatment. This would be the case if they paid out of pocket.

So basically you're saying anything other than bloodletting at the local barber's shop, should be self-paid, because healthcare was better in those days when only the extremely wealthy had acces to anything else.

I question the logic behind that.

Medical technology becomes more expensive as it becomes more advanced, sure. But you seem to be forgetting that it is to save lives. It's not a negative thing, it's an investment in a healthy life.

aelreth:
Since they don't see the increased cost they will always ask for the more expensive treatment especially since insurance will cover it. They don't have a pricing guide.

You seem to see medical treatment like a sort of store where you can buy what you want. It's not. You're diagnosed, a treatment plan is put forward and decided on, and then carried out.

People don't choose. The only thing you can do is scam them out of what they need. The only real debate is between licensed expensive drugs and less expensive non-licensed drugs. And that's a debate that's pointless to wage without a degree in pharmacy.

Experiences in other countries have shown that costs can be managed quite well without resorting to a system of free market healthcare where a happy few get what they need, and everybody else gets nothing, or only the bare essentials.

aelreth:
We have not had a free market in insurance for a long time, every state government creates multiple regulations and requirements that insurance companies, doctors & patients but pay for through increased costs. Prior to LBJ and the states writing into law via regulation & legislation, out of pocket costs were the norm. Costs were low. The doctors came to see us not the other way around.

And healthcare in those days was crap, and the life expectancy 15 years lower. And already then many people were left out.

It was a bad situation that was only going to get worse, any change to it was good.

aelreth:
What gave you the idea that Bush 43 was a conservative? He lowered the interest rates in his first term so he would avoid a recession caused by the end of the dot com boom and bust. His VP said Defecits don't matter.

And that's conservative policy right there. Also the tax cuts for the rich, imposing religion on UNaids, giving government money to religious groups in direct violation of securality and the US constitution (for instance missionary work in prisons under the guise of rehabilitation) he refused to increase US government revenue, and ran a budget with a HUGE deficit.

Claiming that Bush isn't conservative would be lunacy. The guy did everything conservatives want to do.

AgedGrunt:
If I don't want to make use of the health care system I should not have to, nor should I need to pay for others who do. That's what liberty is, it says "No thanks, I can take care of myself."

I think you also know that that is not true. If you break a leg in the middle of nowhere, you want to be taken to a hospital, where they fix the fracture so you're not crippled for the rest of your life.

You make use of healthcare, just like everybody else, and should pay your fair share of that important collective service and collective need.

You can't opt-out of something you use, that's one. And second, trying to do that opt out while you expect others that pay their fair share, to pay for your healthcare is just cheating.

Living in the UK...
Still breathing, walking, talking, hearing and seeing healthily due to the NHS... UNITED STATE OF AMERICA WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THIS???

Its not brankrupting us at all... 28% of the UK's budget goes towards various forms of benefits and the state pension, the NHS makes up 18% of the budget...

A lot you may think? Wrong!

Per Capita (per citizen) the UK spends 1/4 of what the US Government spend on its citizens... and the US Government don't even provide healthcare, merely pick up tthe fucking bills when others can't afford to...

Great job... you foolish Republicans .

Comando96:
Living in the UK...
Still breathing, walking, talking, hearing and seeing healthily due to the NHS... UNITED STATE OF AMERICA WHY WOULD YOU NOT WANT THIS???

Its not brankrupting us at all... 28% of the UK's budget goes towards various forms of benefits and the state pension, the NHS makes up 18% of the budget...

A lot you may think? Wrong!

Per Capita (per citizen) the UK spends 1/4 of what the US Government spend on its citizens... and the US Government don't even provide healthcare, merely pick up tthe fucking bills when others can't afford to...

Great job... you foolish Republicans .

From everything that I have read and heard about the NHS, it sounds perfect for America. A single payer system for people who can't afford it and for those who have the money or good insurance or don't trust in "the death panels", they can go private. And you guys are saving I believe 4 trillion dollars a year on health care costs?

recruit00:
From everything that I have read and heard about the NHS, it sounds perfect for America. A single payer system for people who can't afford it and for those who have the money or good insurance or don't trust in "the death panels", they can go private. And you guys are saving I believe 4 trillion dollars a year on health care costs?

The amount we are saving, honestly can only be measured when compared with others systems... ie the bad one... ie... the USA's.

The bottom line is its affordable, in the short run, in the long run, its the perfect example of a Merit good ripped out of economic theory, and the benefits, personally flow into economic benefits provided by a healier work force.

The only downside side is increased pensions as there are fewer young corpses, as the side effect of medicine is people live longer and require more medicine. Just make sure people save up.

To be honest its just this:
image

I just had an exam in that^ today...

Basically the USA is on SRAC1, while the UK is on LRAC. We invest, therefore we service more people at a lower cost... err... yeah...

Who opposed healthcare stating that the USA's system is better? And more importantly who believed the liars?

Blablahb:
Snip

You talk as if people died in the streets if they didn't have healthcare. They did not. They merely negotiated with their doctor on a payment plan. Does the idea of an honest trade scare you that much? The doctor is a busy man and you would call him and he would come to see you. If someone creates a medical advance it belongs to everyone for free? That makes you an enemy of all invention. Yet our system before and after mandatory emergency services and medicare saves lives. You pretend that the poor never got medical treatment prior to the 1960s, they did, it's called charity. You are unfortunately being taught an alternative universe about a foreign country.

I would hate to break it to you but medical care is a market and it's no different from a store. The state & now the federal governments tells everyone what they can buy sell, the prices they set, then they wonder why supplies are wiped out. Then you cry that the free market fails when the store runs out of one supply and either shut downs or stops providing goods and services. You think that medical care is free just like the air you breath. It's not, even the air cannot be used until you labor through breathing. Medical services is a limited thing, and the American people will learn that their is much less of it when they alienate most of those that practice medicine. It will become even more expensive when it's free.

At the end of the day you don't see the difference between the policies of Calvin Coolidge & George W Bush. That's because you never studied or looked upon an American government that operated a limited government. It's unfortunate, the GOP hasn't fielded a small government candidate since the Goldwater Campaign, everyone else merely tried to act as a steward of a growing welfare state.

Because I'd rather have my healthcare in the hands of a greedy businessman instead of a stupid person in the government. Businesses are more trustworthy because they need your money and thus will work to earn it while the government gets paid even when they sit around drooling on their desks.

aelreth:
Then you cry that the free market fails when the store runs out of one supply and either shut downs or stops providing goods and services. You think that medical care is free just like the air you breath. It's not, even the air cannot be used until you labor through breathing. Medical services is a limited thing, and the American people will learn that their is much less of it when they alienate most of those that practice medicine. It will become even more expensive when it's free.

Bullshit. See All of United Kingdoms per Capita cost of healthcare is 1/4 of that of what the American Government spends... and the American Government doesn't cover everyone at the moment.

Oh yes sure, it would be costly in the first 10-20 years as was the NHS because you feel the effects of LONG TERM health effects distributed throughout the entire population, and rely on the fact people are healthy because they have been seeing doctors all the time. The start up cost for the USA would be large... but its only getting fucking larger... bite the bullet some time in the future.

Also: A Merit good. A good which in consumption has a social benefit above and beyond that of the personal benefit to the firm producing and to the consumer. Two key examples: Education, Healthcare.
They are the prime example of market failure and the justification for Government intervention in a market so that a the typical lack of supply of the good is subsidised, or completely taken control of by the Government in order to maximise both the effects of the Merit good, with Government control allowing the additional benefits, of a benevolent monopoly, supplying the good with the maximum economies of scale, reducing cost per unit, and also providing the good at the point of ARP=ATC, the cost of which, is gathered through taxation.

Don't bullshit.

Xan Krieger:
Because I'd rather have my healthcare in the hands of a greedy businessman instead of a stupid person in the government. Businesses are more trustworthy because they need your money and thus will work to earn it while the government gets paid even when they sit around drooling on their desks.

Very valid point. In a Government controlled monopoly, entrenched by legislation the main risk would be X inefficiencies resulting in a higher cost to the population and a risk of a worse service.

However that's your fault if you allow it to happen.

When Government owns a part of the infrastructure or necessary system, that it provides for, it is the citizens responsibility and duty... to whine...
And this is why the USA both doesn't have a system like this and won't. The citizens are not whining for a superior system, enough... and even if they got one, by the 40% of Americans who clearly can't be fucking arsed to vote for the leader of the country, ultimately this vaccume of citizen concern would lead to a failure in democracy, and subsequently a failure in Government.

Want a good system... well personally I see and get all the benefits of my system... but don't think the USA is worthy of it... it demonstrates time and time again.

Comando96:

aelreth:
Snip

Bullshit. See All of United Kingdoms per Capita cost of healthcare is 1/4 of that of what the American Government spends... and the American Government doesn't cover everyone at the moment.

Oh yes sure, it would be costly in the first 10-20 years as was the NHS because you feel the effects of LONG TERM health effects distributed throughout the entire population, and rely on the fact people are healthy because they have been seeing doctors all the time. The start up cost for the USA would be large... but its only getting fucking larger... bite the bullet some time in the future.

Also: A Merit good. A good which in consumption has a social benefit above and beyond that of the personal benefit to the firm producing and to the consumer. Two key examples: Education, Healthcare.
They are the prime example of market failure and the justification for Government intervention in a market so that a the typical lack of supply of the good is subsidised, or completely taken control of by the Government in order to maximise both the effects of the Merit good, with Government control allowing the additional benefits, of a benevolent monopoly, supplying the good with the maximum economies of scale, reducing cost per unit, and also providing the good at the point of ARP=ATC, the cost of which, is gathered through taxation.

Don't bullshit.

When did I speak of NHS? I'll begin now so you have a legit grievance 'there are rumors of redistribution of wealth' & 'rumors of rationing care'. I speak of austrian economics and the american system, I have yet to have an Austrian economist explain the flaws of the UK system in a fashion. A ration as mentioned above could simply be availability of a time-slot that you determine as a consumer to be longer than 5 minutes after you realized you should see a medical professional.

If your concerned that the american system spends more than the UK, that's because we currently can print the "world reserve currency" this means that the American government does not have to live within it's means. I am fully aware that this currency status is very temporal and will result in calamity on our current trajectory. Eventually reality will have to take hold and interest rates will rise, causing either the US government or the dollar to be destroyed perhaps both.

Since you suggested it, I'll look into some readouts of NHS from the Von Mises Foundation.
-Update- found one (http://mises.ca/posts/articles/universal-mediocrity/)

Enjoy Mr King's inflation by the way. In currency wars, the people lose, while banks, and governments win. If you don't know who that is I would recommend learning about Mervyn King, after all the west is going to crater itself into debt slavery shortly. Canada might survive decently, unless annexed by the US merely because it is very commodity based unlike our Financial sector that will be given a haircut in our true austerity that will inevitably embrace us.

Comando96:

Xan Krieger:
Because I'd rather have my healthcare in the hands of a greedy businessman instead of a stupid person in the government. Businesses are more trustworthy because they need your money and thus will work to earn it while the government gets paid even when they sit around drooling on their desks.

Very valid point. In a Government controlled monopoly, entrenched by legislation the main risk would be X inefficiencies resulting in a higher cost to the population and a risk of a worse service.

However that's your fault if you allow it to happen.

When Government owns a part of the infrastructure or necessary system, that it provides for, it is the citizens responsibility and duty... to whine...
And this is why the USA both doesn't have a system like this and won't. The citizens are not whining for a superior system, enough... and even if they got one, by the 40% of Americans who clearly can't be fucking arsed to vote for the leader of the country, ultimately this vaccume of citizen concern would lead to a failure in democracy, and subsequently a failure in Government.

Want a good system... well personally I see and get all the benefits of my system... but don't think the USA is worthy of it... it demonstrates time and time again.

Here's another problem. Doesn't this create a monopoly? If the government is the only health insurance then can't they set all the prices? Wouldn't we need something else to compete to keep prices lower?

Xan Krieger:
Businesses are more trustworthy because they need your money and thus will work to earn it while the government gets paid even when they sit around drooling on their desks.

That only really works with non-essential things. Healthcare isn't non-essential. You will come to them and they will raise rates and try everything they can to retroactively kick you out for "pre-existing conditions" and other such nonsense to avoid having to pay you after you paid them for years. And thanks to cartel-like practices, they will not have to lower rates/improve services to compete with each other. That's how the game is played.

Xan Krieger:
Here's another problem. Doesn't this create a monopoly? If the government is the only health insurance then can't they set all the prices? Wouldn't we need something else to compete to keep prices lower?

To be fair, a government monopoly isn't the only option. Various countries with governmental healthcare systems also have private insurance which is still quite profitable. The beauty of it? It not only provides a rival to the government which you seem to worry about; the primary benefit is that the governmental insurance provides a rival for the private insurers! They have to provide basic services and cannot kick people out, otherwise everybody switches to the governmental plan. They can't scratch basic services for arbitrary reasons to save money because the governmental, not profit-oriented plan provides them. The private insurers are actually held to a basic standard of what they can and can't do and this happens through free market mechanisms! That's why, while the public option was already a compromise, I thought it would've been a great idea to implement in the USA.

aelreth:
You talk as if people died in the streets if they didn't have healthcare. They did not. They merely negotiated with their doctor on a payment plan.

You're assuming everyone has the money for that.

They don't.

It can't be that hard to grasp a concept that if people can't afford healthcare they won't get healthcare. The main reason the US is paying so much is their system where the state only covers if it gets too bad, meaning people don't get treated untill it's an emergency, and then it costs a lot more.

aelreth:
et our system before and after mandatory emergency services and medicare saves lives. You pretend that the poor never got medical treatment prior to the 1960s, they did, it's called charity. You are unfortunately being taught an alternative universe about a foreign country.

Ah, the saviour of the conservative argument: charity. That thing that can't be relied upon in all cases and often requires fulfilling a secondary more nefarious agenda (read: convert, or else..).

Obviously you can't gamble on charity to provide an essential service. They tried that during the industrial revolution. Guess how conditions back then were for people?

aelreth:
I would hate to break it to you but medical care is a market and it's no different from a store. The state & now the federal governments tells everyone what they can buy sell, the prices they set, then they wonder why supplies are wiped out.

No, the US government doesn't intervene like that. If only they did... Regulations regarding cost are a good way to keep healthcare expenses from getting out of control due to greed on the part of medical establishments. And a doctor 'on the ground' may not think like "Let's charge this guy extra so I can buy a third car at the end of the year", but the people who run hospitals and such are susceptible to such thinking.

And for doctors for instance it's been proven that they can be influenced by drug manafacturers, and bribed to prescribe more expensive brand medications instead of cheaper brandless ones that have the same effect.

aelreth:
At the end of the day you don't see the difference between the policies of Calvin Coolidge & George W Bush. That's because you never studied or looked upon an American government that operated a limited government.

Your blame rings hollow. I understand small government conservatism perfectly. You're the one who's denying its effects, because they're an inconvenient truth to your political ideas. Also I can be fairly sure you've no clue what you're talking about, because you're a privileged kid in some suburb, ussually the case with small government conservatives; nobody who knows how it works thinks like that.

One thing that remains bullshit however, is your claim that healthcare gets better and cheaper as you deny it to more people, and fewer people can afford it. It may be true that the lucky few who can afford healthcare get it faster, but you just can't ignore the impact of many people being left without healthcare. That may be normal for you, but it's not. Not just that, but that effect has made US healthcare very expensive. A model where everybody pays for everybody's needs has been proven to be much cheaper.

Xan Krieger:
Wouldn't we need something else to compete to keep prices lower?

No...

...

...oh wait I am going to need to explain this... *sigh*

You only need competition to keep prices low when there are multiple companies. This is due to the fact a companies motivating factor is profit.

A Diagram:
image
Fun fun fun fun bording as sin fun fun fun economic theory!

OK normally in a perfectly competative market a firm would produce a good and sell at a price of where MR (Marginal Revenue - each additional unit sold, value) is intercepted by MC(Marginal Cost - each additional unit produced cost). Then the goods are added to the market and sold for at a minimum of Costs,Q1, where the Average Total Costs are both lowest, and met. Selling for a value less than this makes a loss (or in terms of a Government service, with less money than they were expecting to get). However due to their monopoly power over the market, and the fact their are the sole supplier, they can charge a rate of P1,Q1 running off of AR=D(Average Revenue) curve. This would then result in a supernormal profit, of P1 - Costs. If more firms were allowed to enter, this would not be the case as to be competative, the firm shown would have to lower their prices, and would not be using this diagram as its the monopoly diagram :P

However a Government run Monopoly is different to this. Though they would be a monopoly, they are being supplied via taxes therefore their aim is not profit, but maximum allocation of resources.
Same shit, different diagram:
image

Here we have the situation above, where a firm would aim to maximise profits, but also, the allocatively efficient version. Rather than aiming to produce less, and gain more in profit through the increased spending due to excess demand, the monopoly could produce to supply where MC intercepts AR=D (labeling P is an uncessary thing to do, but not wrong) and then it would, sell to the market at a lower cost, and produce more of the good. Depending on how effectively economies of scale have been utilised (Economies of scale lower the ATC, or AC), then the lower the cost to the consumer. Any excess profit should then be re-invested to increase the economies of scale to further lower ATC and also shift other curves, so as to increase the volume of people who can be serviced at a low cost.

-

When the Government is the provider it should be providing the service for the service's value and not for profit. The only risk within Government controlled monopolies are X-inefficiencies.

This has stripped all the other curves off and just looks at ATC
image

X-inefficiencies are simple and unavoidable in all companies, merely containable. Its where a cost is incurred that is more than needs to be. For example, company cars, someone negotiates the car the employee's want, however the boss picks the slightly more expensive model as he knows it handles better. That is an X-inefficiency. Bloomberg, the Financial information service provider who own and control most of the infrastructure used on the modern day stock market, and its founder Michael Bloomberg, (yes the Mayor or New York) have one of the best X-inefficienes possible. When the company first started they began in a windowless building so Bloomberg's wife bought all employees a gold fish they needed to feed and care for. Bloomberg now has 11,000 employees in London alone, and as a result own the 2nd largest aquarium in Europe, employing 4 marine biologists.

In a Government controlled health service the main X-inefficiency would be over paying, and administrative errors, along with inevitable "we shouldn't have employed that Doctor, here is some compensation" - mishaps.

They key thing here in reguard to X-inefficienies is to ensure that the economy of scale the Health service has, is so large, it would offset X-ineficiencies. The best way to do this is to have the Government constantly pestering the service. The best way to achieve that, is for the PEOPLE to constantly pester the politicians and ensure they do their best to allow as few inefficiencies occour as possible.

----------------------------------------

aelreth:
If your concerned that the american system spends more than the UK, that's because we currently can print the "world reserve currency" this means that the American government does not have to live within it's means. I am fully aware that this currency status is very temporal and will result in calamity on our current trajectory. Eventually reality will have to take hold and interest rates will rise, causing either the US government or the dollar to be destroyed perhaps both.

Unrelated.

I am speaking of per capita spending when:
UK Covers everyone
USA pays for no more than 80/300 million

That's damning that per capital to cover 26.7% of its citizens it spends 4 times more than a country who offers to cover everyone.

aelreth:
Since you suggested it, I'll look into some readouts of NHS from the Von Mises Foundation.
-Update- found one (http://mises.ca/posts/articles/universal-mediocrity/)

Hence why the people, are relied upon. At the end a rant ensues about the Orwellian fashion a Government will always take over its lessors bla bla bla, well thats the peoples fault. We do not live in an Orwellian world, though in many ways we live in more of one, but less of one in the world he lived in. If the people keep the government in check AS ITS THEIR JOB TO DO IN A DEMOCRACY OR DEMOCRACY FAILS, then problems will occour but they will be short term.

aelreth:
Enjoy Mr King's inflation by the way. In currency wars, the people lose, while banks, and governments win. If you don't know who that is I would recommend learning about Mervyn King, after all the west is going to crater itself into debt slavery shortly. Canada might survive decently, unless annexed by the US merely because it is very commodity based unlike our Financial sector that will be given a haircut in our true austerity that will inevitably embrace us.

Oddly enough I know who he is.. and his replacement... Mark Carney replacing him on 1st July. Also the fact that Canada's economy... Mark Carney has been managing for the past several years until offered the job over here, I'd think that its more important to know who his replacement is, rather than the outgoing man, but even so I did before you asked.

The problem is simple. People aren't spending money. Therefore:
Diagram
image
Aggregate demand is low
Aggregate demand is:
AD = C + I + G + (X-M).
C = Consumer Spending
I = Infrastructure
G = Government spending
X = Exports
M = Imports

Therefore to get an economy moving you either leave it alone and hope things sorta fix themselves which they do in the long run, but in the long run we're all dead.
Or you can try to boost Aggregate demand (spending), to try to get an economy moving again.

This can be done by, the government spending... no. They're near bankrupt.
Infrastructure spending is a possibility but normally it is government which institutes it so unlikely.
Increasing exports and lowering exports by weakening the currency would be a possibility, if every other nation weren't doing the same. It them ends in the mutual giant death loop, the country to lose the most is merely the one who wasted the most paper and ink.
Finally there is increasing consumer spending but... that is a near impossibility in an economic recession where people keep hold of their money.

So... solutions?
Governments came up with QE, which is seperate to the giant death loop of hyperinflation, if done correctly.

People aren't spending, therefore you... overtyly steal the value of their money by inflating the amount of money in the economy. Then you use this money wisely, to boost spending in long term projects at a time when wages are low, in an attempt to increase the Long Run Aggregate Supply potential of the economy which can then be avalible to offer more goods, at the same price, or the same goods at a lower price, helping to star the economy.

Its a good idea. Only 1 problem. King... why are you giving the money to the fucking banks? They don't spend it... and... no profit... at all...

Good idea implimentaly terribly beyond belief... but I digress from the topic of the thread.

captchas:
make it so

Yes King, make it so! Do it correctly this time xD

Blablahb:

aelreth:
You talk as if people died in the streets if they didn't have healthcare. They did not. They merely negotiated with their doctor on a payment plan.

You're assuming everyone has the money for that.

They don't.

It can't be that hard to grasp a concept that if people can't afford healthcare they won't get healthcare. The main reason the US is paying so much is their system where the state only covers if it gets too bad, meaning people don't get treated untill it's an emergency, and then it costs a lot more.

aelreth:
et our system before and after mandatory emergency services and medicare saves lives. You pretend that the poor never got medical treatment prior to the 1960s, they did, it's called charity. You are unfortunately being taught an alternative universe about a foreign country.

Ah, the saviour of the conservative argument: charity. That thing that can't be relied upon in all cases and often requires fulfilling a secondary more nefarious agenda (read: convert, or else..).

Obviously you can't gamble on charity to provide an essential service. They tried that during the industrial revolution. Guess how conditions back then were for people?

aelreth:
I would hate to break it to you but medical care is a market and it's no different from a store. The state & now the federal governments tells everyone what they can buy sell, the prices they set, then they wonder why supplies are wiped out.

No, the US government doesn't intervene like that. If only they did... Regulations regarding cost are a good way to keep healthcare expenses from getting out of control due to greed on the part of medical establishments. And a doctor 'on the ground' may not think like "Let's charge this guy extra so I can buy a third car at the end of the year", but the people who run hospitals and such are susceptible to such thinking.

And for doctors for instance it's been proven that they can be influenced by drug manafacturers, and bribed to prescribe more expensive brand medications instead of cheaper brandless ones that have the same effect.

aelreth:
At the end of the day you don't see the difference between the policies of Calvin Coolidge & George W Bush. That's because you never studied or looked upon an American government that operated a limited government.

Your blame rings hollow. I understand small government conservatism perfectly. You're the one who's denying its effects, because they're an inconvenient truth to your political ideas. Also I can be fairly sure you've no clue what you're talking about, because you're a privileged kid in some suburb, ussually the case with small government conservatives; nobody who knows how it works thinks like that.

One thing that remains bullshit however, is your claim that healthcare gets better and cheaper as you deny it to more people, and fewer people can afford it. It may be true that the lucky few who can afford healthcare get it faster, but you just can't ignore the impact of many people being left without healthcare. That may be normal for you, but it's not. Not just that, but that effect has made US healthcare very expensive. A model where everybody pays for everybody's needs has been proven to be much cheaper.

You don't even comprehend pre 1960s medical care nor do do you comprehend post 1960 medical care within the United States.

In pre-1960 every single poor person would be dead.

In rural & urban America you would get the doctor if someone in the family was ill, they would come out and help. They simply would call him in. People actually owned their land not renting it from the state or the bank. We also had savings as well. This was used to finance their medical care. As it stands our billionaire's back then would donate millions of dollars to various hospitals who would take on charity cases in the cities.

These charity hospitals simply survived by donations, poor people would get care and were taken care of.

Then in post 1960 you don't understand how emergency rooms work in the United States. People don't have doctors, they use the emergency rooms as their primary doctor. They also use Medicaid & Cobra.

Healthcare has been made very expensive to those who work in the United States. It's the complete opposite of what it should be. We pay it through the inflation caused by debt, mal-inveestments through government subsidies and regulations that ignore human action. Every regulation that you put into place makes paperwork that much more difficult and causes the doctor to work more at his desk rather than his patients, he could always turn and hire another paper pusher, but that will still cause him to charge his customers to pay for them.

When a new technology becomes available, first the initial cost to develop the tech must be paid back, This usually involves paying back the bondholders (who could be a monolithic corporate entity or in the past were usually neighbors & family who had to be talked into helping and put their money at risk).

Would you like to hear why I'm not poor, it's simple;

He that labors labors for himself; for his mouth craves it of him.

For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.

The best thing the poor can do for themselves is to feel uncomfortable enough to pull themselves out of it. It requires discipline, time and hard work. Which are things that are being destroyed in the United States through a rotting culture.

Does the freedom to choose scare you that much?

It's either my freedom to choose, or your slavery at the point of a gun. The fruit of my labor belongs to me.

Envy can be better channeled into something more. Emulate the successful and you get ahead.

aelreth:
The fruit of my labor belongs to me.

Yet you won't think twice before capitalizing on the fruit of the labor of someone else, will you?

aelreth:
In rural & urban America you would get the doctor if someone in the family was ill, they would come out and help. They simply would call him in. People actually owned their land not renting it from the state or the bank. We also had savings as well. This was used to finance their medical care. As it stands our billionaire's back then would donate millions of dollars to various hospitals who would take on charity cases in the cities.

Here you go again with that conservative assumption that you can finance healthcare from your savings. No, you can't.

Almost nobody has the savings required for serious healthcare, and many Americans do not have enough money to afford even basic healthcare from their own pocket. Heck, a few million people survive on foodstamps.

aelreth:
Then in post 1960 you don't understand how emergency rooms work in the United States. People don't have doctors, they use the emergency rooms as their primary doctor. They also use Medicaid & Cobra.

Oh, I understand perfectly how that works. People either choose to not purchase health insurance or they can't afford it. When they get ill, they have to wait untill it gets bad. Then they go to the ER, and the inflated bill for helping them ussually ends up with the taxpayer.
The whole reason this happens is because of conservatives who think 'people can afford their own healthcare', and have made health insurance rather hard to reach. I did a rundown of US insurance compared to my own. I pay € 108 a month for something that covers all you need, limited physical therapy, all dental needs up to € 1500 etc.

The cheapest equivalent I could find among US insurers was € 168 a month that offered only partial coverage of even necessary care, and there weren't even additional packages available for some of the things covered naturally around here.

So if my country had been ruled by conservatives who think healthcare should be self-paid, I couldn't have afforded that during studying for instance. Would've been rather bad as I sustained a number of sports injuries during that time. Two broken metatarsal bones, dislocated toe, broken ribs and a rather nasty thing, likely some kind of infection that lasted for 9 months and made it nearly impossible to speak and breathe too much.
If I was forced to live under your idea of self-paid healthcare back then, I'd have been crippled due to untreated foot injuries by now, and incorrect response to broken ribs can lead to collapsed or punctured longues, which is extremely dangerous. Being crippled in turn would've prevented me from joining the army and getting my present job, and making money.

Either universal state-paid healthcare financed through taxes, or heavily regulated mandatory private insurance will fix this problem.

aelreth:
Healthcare has been made very expensive to those who work in the United States. It's the complete opposite of what it should be. We pay it through the inflation caused by debt, mal-inveestments through government subsidies and regulations that ignore human action.

That's incorrect. Healthcare insurance for working people in the US is so expensive because it's deregulated, so insurers operate in an oligopoly market, where they can pretty much fuck the consumer over as hard as they like, as long as their colleagues follow suit.

And also because healthcare itself is also deregulated. There's nothing stopping your dentist from making ridiculous profits for instance. So you file massive bills with your insurer, and he has to raise the premiums.

The answer to that is of course to regulate the prices by capping them at a cost + profit percentage, and regulate insurers so that they don't enrich themselves at the expense of their customers.

aelreth:
Does the freedom to choose scare you that much?

People claiming that they supposedly have a 'right' to deny millions of people healthcare scares me yes. The consequences of that are disastrous.

Also I kind of question their senses. How can they be so cold-hearted and anti-social to claim it's a good thing if only the rich can afford healthcare? I know the answer to that of course, it's a rhetorical question: Every conservative who cries that is some rich guy in a suburb far away from society, and they don't understand what they're talking about. Conservative dogma ussually ends up making people not look further han what's right in front of them. Concepts like 'keeping the US population healthy' are too abstract for them to grasp.

Well, or they can grasp it, but choose not to. Perhaps that's a more likely explanation.


If you want to know more, several documentaries have been made about the subject. Michael Moore's Sicko is a pretty good one, even if conservatives cry that man is the incarnation of satan because of the inconvenient truths he brings.
It's apparently released online because I found several sites offering legal online viewing. Youtube still beats them in terms of load times, so here's that link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WamvqywGjtg

Even if you're not much of a documentary person, just watch the first minutes for a few examples of what conservatives have done to people with self-paid healthcare.

PBS also made a pretty good one about this:
http://www.pbs.org/programs/us-health-care-good-news/

Which they also put online for free on their own site:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2198039605

Once again, merely watching the first minute gets the point across already.

aelreth:
I would hate to break it to you but medical care is a market and it's no different from a store.

No, in many ways it really isn't like a normal market and buying things from a store.

Unless, perhaps, you are frequently forced by chance to go into a store and purchase things or risk severe, even fatal consequences for not doing so. You do not know what products you need from the store, why you need them, and have to pay a third party in the store to make the decisions and arrange it with the shopkeeper.

I cannot account for your typical shopping experience, but I would think the above situation unlikely.

Comando96:

aelreth:
If your concerned that the american system spends more than the UK, that's because we currently can print the "world reserve currency" this means that the American government does not have to live within it's means. I am fully aware that this currency status is very temporal and will result in calamity on our current trajectory. Eventually reality will have to take hold and interest rates will rise, causing either the US government or the dollar to be destroyed perhaps both.

Unrelated.

I am speaking of per capita spending when:
UK Covers everyone
USA pays for no more than 80/300 million

That's damning that per capital to cover 26.7% of its citizens it spends 4 times more than a country who offers to cover everyone.

aelreth:
Since you suggested it, I'll look into some readouts of NHS from the Von Mises Foundation.
-Update- found one (http://mises.ca/posts/articles/universal-mediocrity/)

Hence why the people, are relied upon. At the end a rant ensues about the Orwellian fashion a Government will always take over its lessors bla bla bla, well thats the peoples fault. We do not live in an Orwellian world, though in many ways we live in more of one, but less of one in the world he lived in. If the people keep the government in check AS ITS THEIR JOB TO DO IN A DEMOCRACY OR DEMOCRACY FAILS, then problems will occour but they will be short term.

aelreth:
Enjoy Mr King's inflation by the way. In currency wars, the people lose, while banks, and governments win. If you don't know who that is I would recommend learning about Mervyn King, after all the west is going to crater itself into debt slavery shortly. Canada might survive decently, unless annexed by the US merely because it is very commodity based unlike our Financial sector that will be given a haircut in our true austerity that will inevitably embrace us.

Oddly enough I know who he is.. and his replacement... Mark Carney replacing him on 1st July. Also the fact that Canada's economy... Mark Carney has been managing for the past several years until offered the job over here, I'd think that its more important to know who his replacement is, rather than the outgoing man, but even so I did before you asked.

The problem is simple. People aren't spending money. Therefore:
Diagram
image
Aggregate demand is low
Aggregate demand is:
AD = C + I + G + (X-M).
C = Consumer Spending
I = Infrastructure
G = Government spending
X = Exports
M = Imports

Therefore to get an economy moving you either leave it alone and hope things sorta fix themselves which they do in the long run, but in the long run we're all dead.
Or you can try to boost Aggregate demand (spending), to try to get an economy moving again.

This can be done by, the government spending... no. They're near bankrupt.
Infrastructure spending is a possibility but normally it is government which institutes it so unlikely.
Increasing exports and lowering exports by weakening the currency would be a possibility, if every other nation weren't doing the same. It them ends in the mutual giant death loop, the country to lose the most is merely the one who wasted the most paper and ink.
Finally there is increasing consumer spending but... that is a near impossibility in an economic recession where people keep hold of their money.

So... solutions?
Governments came up with QE, which is seperate to the giant death loop of hyperinflation, if done correctly.

People aren't spending, therefore you... overtyly steal the value of their money by inflating the amount of money in the economy. Then you use this money wisely, to boost spending in long term projects at a time when wages are low, in an attempt to increase the Long Run Aggregate Supply potential of the economy which can then be avalible to offer more goods, at the same price, or the same goods at a lower price, helping to star the economy.

Its a good idea. Only 1 problem. King... why are you giving the money to the fucking banks? They don't spend it... and... no profit... at all...

Good idea implimentaly terribly beyond belief... but I digress from the topic of the thread.

captchas:
make it so

Yes King, make it so! Do it correctly this time xD

Why are you replacing someone in the UK that is at least letting the value of your currency rise with someone that is destroying the value of the Canadian dollar?

Canadians could easily become very wealthy because their dollar would be worth so much more, their trade surplus looks fantastic on paper.

The problem is that we have a broken banking sector. Thanks Greenspan.

It's saving not spending. This scenario has been tried in Japan & by FDR. It wasn't until the austerity of war that the core problems in the economy could finally be sorted out.

Blablahb:

aelreth:
In rural & urban America you would get the doctor if someone in the family was ill, they would come out and help. They simply would call him in. People actually owned their land not renting it from the state or the bank. We also had savings as well. This was used to finance their medical care. As it stands our billionaire's back then would donate millions of dollars to various hospitals who would take on charity cases in the cities.

Here you go again with that conservative assumption that you can finance healthcare from your savings. No, you can't.

Almost nobody has the savings required for serious healthcare, and many Americans do not have enough money to afford even basic healthcare from their own pocket. Heck, a few million people survive on foodstamps.

aelreth:
Then in post 1960 you don't understand how emergency rooms work in the United States. People don't have doctors, they use the emergency rooms as their primary doctor. They also use Medicaid & Cobra.

Oh, I understand perfectly how that works. People either choose to not purchase health insurance or they can't afford it. When they get ill, they have to wait untill it gets bad. Then they go to the ER, and the inflated bill for helping them ussually ends up with the taxpayer.
The whole reason this happens is because of conservatives who think 'people can afford their own healthcare', and have made health insurance rather hard to reach. I did a rundown of US insurance compared to my own. I pay € 108 a month for something that covers all you need, limited physical therapy, all dental needs up to € 1500 etc.

The cheapest equivalent I could find among US insurers was € 168 a month that offered only partial coverage of even necessary care, and there weren't even additional packages available for some of the things covered naturally around here.

So if my country had been ruled by conservatives who think healthcare should be self-paid, I couldn't have afforded that during studying for instance. Would've been rather bad as I sustained a number of sports injuries during that time. Two broken metatarsal bones, dislocated toe, broken ribs and a rather nasty thing, likely some kind of infection that lasted for 9 months and made it nearly impossible to speak and breathe too much.
If I was forced to live under your idea of self-paid healthcare back then, I'd have been crippled due to untreated foot injuries by now, and incorrect response to broken ribs can lead to collapsed or punctured longues, which is extremely dangerous. Being crippled in turn would've prevented me from joining the army and getting my present job, and making money.

Either universal state-paid healthcare financed through taxes, or heavily regulated mandatory private insurance will fix this problem.

aelreth:
Healthcare has been made very expensive to those who work in the United States. It's the complete opposite of what it should be. We pay it through the inflation caused by debt, mal-inveestments through government subsidies and regulations that ignore human action.

That's incorrect. Healthcare insurance for working people in the US is so expensive because it's deregulated, so insurers operate in an oligopoly market, where they can pretty much fuck the consumer over as hard as they like, as long as their colleagues follow suit.

And also because healthcare itself is also deregulated. There's nothing stopping your dentist from making ridiculous profits for instance. So you file massive bills with your insurer, and he has to raise the premiums.

The answer to that is of course to regulate the prices by capping them at a cost + profit percentage, and regulate insurers so that they don't enrich themselves at the expense of their customers.

aelreth:
Does the freedom to choose scare you that much?

People claiming that they supposedly have a 'right' to deny millions of people healthcare scares me yes. The consequences of that are disastrous.

Also I kind of question their senses. How can they be so cold-hearted and anti-social to claim it's a good thing if only the rich can afford healthcare? I know the answer to that of course, it's a rhetorical question: Every conservative who cries that is some rich guy in a suburb far away from society, and they don't understand what they're talking about. Conservative dogma ussually ends up making people not look further han what's right in front of them. Concepts like 'keeping the US population healthy' are too abstract for them to grasp.

Well, or they can grasp it, but choose not to. Perhaps that's a more likely explanation.


If you want to know more, several documentaries have been made about the subject. Michael Moore's Sicko is a pretty good one, even if conservatives cry that man is the incarnation of satan because of the inconvenient truths he brings.
It's apparently released online because I found several sites offering legal online viewing. Youtube still beats them in terms of load times, so here's that link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WamvqywGjtg

Even if you're not much of a documentary person, just watch the first minutes for a few examples of what conservatives have done to people with self-paid healthcare.

PBS also made a pretty good one about this:
http://www.pbs.org/programs/us-health-care-good-news/

Which they also put online for free on their own site:
http://video.pbs.org/video/2198039605

Once again, merely watching the first minute gets the point across already.

Why on earth would you buy health insurance in the united states like a sucker?

You forgo health insurance. Wait until your in an accident then you buy health insurance. Simply because they can't turn you away because you have a pre-existing condition. Then you wonder why health insurance prices have skyrocketed (yet the CPI won't report it or they would have to increase social security cost of living adjustments).

Also corporations don't pay taxes, only shareholders, customers and their employees do. Increasing taxes & regulations on them will only hurt those that operate on the slimmest margins. This allows price gouging from the mega corps. Ever wonder why some corporations try to have their taxes raised? It's to wipe out competition.

Also we have states that create their own unique hurdles to insurers, outlaw out of state competition, a legal system that causes malpractice insurance to creep up every year on every doctor, outlaw international competition, then we have an FDA which creates a billion dollar hurdle for any drug to enter the market (thus the bondholders have to get a return on this billion dollar investment). Now we have an HHS that can further tell what every single employer must do.

I think health insurance should belong to the person, they should choose what should and shouldn't be covered. Since I take better care of my body than others and don't engage in dangerous activities, I don't want to be on the same policy that goes skiing every afternoon.

Unfortunately this cage the united states has been in was set up between FDR, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ & Obama.

This is a fixed market rigged to benefit governments, big pharma and the financial industry. Mistaking it for a free market is a junk charge.

BiscuitTrouser:
As someone who doesnt own a car i feel much the same way about roads. In society we pay for things via taxes we will never use on the basis that, in future, others will pay for our things

One indirectly makes use of roads and rail: shipping, commerce, industry, etc., what makes the world go places. Interestingly, when you send a letter through the mail you purchase a stamp because you opted to use that service.

How about insurance? Life insurance is optional. Do you feel you should contribute to an auto insurance pool even though you don't have a car?

Taxes also require a condition, such as purchasing something (sales tax). If healthcare is a tax, what is it people are doing that is taxed? Breathing? That's where it falls apart and where a lot of people feel cheesed. I don't need government or a healthcare system in order to breathe.

Karma168:
Have you any idea how deadly the flu is? Just look up how many people die in the US every year from what is one of the most common viruses we come into contact with. Should we not bother with vaccination programs because it's not a scary infection?

Recently however there has been a spike in the number of cases reported because idiots think that vaccinations aren't safe/needed and don't get their kids protected.

When you put healthcare in government hands they don't decide anything related to what doctors do, they don't decide the drugs, the diagnosis, etc. What they decide is the budget, nothing else.

That is all a socialised system would do, tell hospitals they can't charge whatever the fuck they want...

I should have been more general speaking about substantial risk to not being vaccinated. The flu is deadly but I've heard that's mostly with the elderly. Additionally, flu vaccines are not able to target every strain of influenza (the latest one missed on one and why a lot of people are getting sick). And thank you for calling people idiots who are informed, from doctors no less, just what exactly is in a flu vaccine. These are not exactly the nicest things and I think it's fair to take a tiny risk of getting the flu than increasing my risk for other things because of the vaccination itself.

And by the way let's be clear between a publicly funded system and a system where a government is involved in administration (legislation, taxing, regulation, standards). Government involvement absolutely can change the quality and integrity of the health care and pharmaceutical industry.

I'll bold this so it is 100% clear: Americans know what their government is up to and are smart enough to not trust them with a health care system.

All disagreements aside, even if it would go down here it would be a disaster just like everything else the government touches. If for no other reason than disease control, it's worth preventing the government from spreading.

Blablahb:
You make use of healthcare, just like everybody else, and should pay your fair share of that important collective service and collective need.

I've never broken a bone in my body and other than some very early care in the first years of life I have scarcely touched the medical industry. No annual check-ups, no injuries. I don't smoke, do drugs, drink or do anything to risk my life or others. I absolutely can opt-out of this because I don't use it. And you know what? If I do, charge me! Ha! Billing; what a concept.

AgedGrunt:

Taxes also require a condition, such as purchasing something (sales tax). If healthcare is a tax, what is it people are doing that is taxed? Breathing? That's where it falls apart and where a lot of people feel cheesed. I don't need government or a healthcare system in order to breathe.

I've never broken a bone in my body and other than some very early care in the first years of life I have scarcely touched the medical industry. No annual check-ups, no injuries. I don't smoke, do drugs, drink or do anything to risk my life or others. I absolutely can opt-out of this because I don't use it. And you know what? If I do, charge me! Ha! Billing; what a concept.

You're right the condition is being alive. By your logic however any adult paying taxes that is childless should be able to 'opt-out' of paying taxes that go towards education; do you really think that's what America's woefully underfunded education system needs? Less money coming in?

What about when you stop breathing? A girl I know, who's much fitter and healthier than me, suffered a stroke and would have died in her sleep had her boyfriend not been there to phone an ambulance. She's young, fit and healthy - she has no need for the health system and never interacted with it... until she really needed it.

Health care is not like owning a car, it has a benefit far beyond you, same as education. When you pay into it you ensure that the rest of the population is fit, able and able to pay into it themselves (either today or later) or able to provide some form of labour that supports you; same way you pay into education to ensure if you have kids there is a school for them and that there are educated people around you that can help you.

Think of it this way, you live in a small town where nobody drives. By your 'opt-out if it doesn't affect you' system there would be no taxes put towards roads because nobody needs them. What happens when your wife/girlfriend goes into labour/falls down the stairs? How is an ambulance going to get to you if there are no roads?

That's why you pay towards something that may not benefit you right now - you have no way of knowing if you'll need it at some point in the future, as well as the wider benefits for the population which in turn benefits you.

I should have been more general speaking about substantial risk to not being vaccinated. The flu is deadly but I've heard that's mostly with the elderly. Additionally, flu vaccines are not able to target every strain of influenza (the latest one missed on one and why a lot of people are getting sick). And thank you for calling people idiots who are informed, from doctors no less, just what exactly is in a flu vaccine. These are not exactly the nicest things and I think it's fair to take a tiny risk of getting the flu than increasing my risk for other things because of the vaccination itself.

Firstly I wasn't talking about people refusing the flu jab i was talking about these people.

And secondly if you're like me (young, no health conditions, not in the military) then you don't need a vaccine, but if you are are in an at risk category (who have a substantially increased risk when not vaccinated), are not allergic to the vaccine and still refuse because of ethical reasons then sorry, but you're an idiot. If a vegan turns down the vaccine on moral grounds because they might (they don't always) use chickens eggs and dies then they deserve a Darwin award.

And by the way let's be clear between a publicly funded system and a system where a government is involved in administration (legislation, taxing, regulation, standards). Government involvement absolutely can change the quality and integrity of the health care and pharmaceutical industry.

So by stopping doctors prescribing ridiculously expensive medicines when there is a cheaper alternative that does exactly the same thing? Because that seems like a plus to me.

Seriously if you went into a NHS hospital (without knowing you were in the UK (just go with it)) you would not notice any difference in the quality in care. Government does not affect how an individual hospital is run beyond who is in charge of it (i.e. the board of directors), would you rather have a hospital board determined to make a profit or one that can focus on getting the best quality care?

I'll bold this so it is 100% clear: Americans know what their government is up to and are smart enough to not trust them with a health care system.

All disagreements aside, even if it would go down here it would be a disaster just like everything else the government touches. If for no other reason than disease control, it's worth preventing the government from spreading.

Are you sure about that? 18% think Obama is a Muslim, 10% still believe he's not American and 40% think he's a socialist. When almost half the country thinks the president is a Socialist (he's probably about the same as our Conservative party, if not further right) then I don't think you can say people are aware enough about politics to be making informed decisions on government or healthcare (seriously, look how many people believe the 'death panel' propaganda?).

Government is not a disease, no matter what right wing groups say. I always toyed with the idea of moving to America for a few years (just as a kind of extended sightseeing trip) I suggest you have a look at doing the same in Europe. Spend a few years over here and you'd realise there is nothing wrong with government and that it has it's benefits.

aelreth:
Why on earth would you buy health insurance in the united states like a sucker?
You forgo health insurance. Wait until your in an accident then you buy health insurance. Simply because they can't turn you away because you have a pre-existing condition. Then you wonder why health insurance prices have skyrocketed (yet the CPI won't report it or they would have to increase social security cost of living adjustments).

So you'll agree that health insurance needs to be made mandatory to avoid people parasiting like that.

For instance not being insured carries a € 160 a month penalty, which is easily more expensive than health insurance which goes for € 95-110 a month. It's ensured that anyone who doesn't have health insurance could never afford it on their own anyway, ussually because they're drug addicts or something. And those are hardly people you want to envy over not paying a small premium monthly. Point is, the knowing parasite who can afford it but doesn't, has become extinct due to that system.

The US should introduce one too. It would fix the problem of health insurance being expensive, and the problem of people not being insured.

aelreth:
Also we have states that create their own unique hurdles to insurers, outlaw out of state competition, a legal system that causes malpractice insurance to creep up every year on every doctor, outlaw international competition, then we have an FDA which creates a billion dollar hurdle for any drug to enter the market

You just questioned drug safety...

Seriously, stop it. All you're going to succeed in by doing that is having people question your sanity. The need for drug safety and testing is blindingly obvious.

In addition, I'm going to give you an example of what would happen almost daily if that drug safety were to be abolished to save on research and testing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisis

aelreth:
Unfortunately this cage the united states has been in was set up between FDR, Woodrow Wilson, LBJ & Obama.
This is a fixed market rigged to benefit governments, big pharma and the financial industry. Mistaking it for a free market is a junk charge.

Don't confuse conspiracy theories with arguments alright? It's also demonstrably untrue. For one thing our system of heavily regulated mandatory private insurance has created the College of Health Insurerers (CVZ in Dutch) who bargain about costs collectively. They're in a very powerfull position towards pharmaceutical companies, because if the CVZ doesn't strike a deal with you, your drug is not going to get used anywhere. As a result they have a powerfull negotiation position and prices are kept down as much as is possible in that market.

The regulations of the medical market benefit almost everyone, but mostly the consumer slash person in need of healthcare, and secondly healthcare professionals who don't have to be devious business managers in addition to doctors, before they can go about their business. The regulations create clarity and fairness on the market.

AgedGrunt:
I've never broken a bone in my body and other than some very early care in the first years of life I have scarcely touched the medical industry. No annual check-ups, no injuries. I don't smoke, do drugs, drink or do anything to risk my life or others. I absolutely can opt-out of this because I don't use it. And you know what? If I do, charge me! Ha! Billing; what a concept.

Lucky you. You still use healthcare and still need to contribute to it though. If you'd been run over by a car, you'd want to be taken to a hospital and fixed up.

If you want to opt out, you must also never use healthcare. And nobody ever does that, so nobody deserves to opt out, simple.

Blablahb:
So you'll agree that health insurance needs to be made mandatory to avoid people parasiting like that.

For instance not being insured carries a € 160 a month penalty, which is easily more expensive than health insurance which goes for € 95-110 a month. It's ensured that anyone who doesn't have health insurance could never afford it on their own anyway, ussually because they're drug addicts or something. And those are hardly people you want to envy over not paying a small premium monthly. Point is, the knowing parasite who can afford it but doesn't, has become extinct due to that system.
The US should introduce one too. It would fix the problem of health insurance being expensive, and the problem of people not being insured.

So I can require you to buy guns too? After all your security should be your own responsibility. You can't have a law enforcement everywhere you go. If you don't take care of business yourself some child can be accosted. After all it's your duty to protect the innocent as an able bodied adult, right?

There is no greater tyranny than forcing someone to do something they find morally repulsive, is that right?

People should be responsible for their own healthcare. Not their employer, not their government.

People should be free to choose. If you deny them a choice, then you deny their free will and make them sub-human.

Blablahb:

aelreth:
Also we have states that create their own unique hurdles to insurers, outlaw out of state competition, a legal system that causes malpractice insurance to creep up every year on every doctor, outlaw international competition, then we have an FDA which creates a billion dollar hurdle for any drug to enter the market

You just questioned drug safety...

Seriously, stop it. All you're going to succeed in by doing that is having people question your sanity. The need for drug safety and testing is blindingly obvious.

In addition, I'm going to give you an example of what would happen almost daily if that drug safety were to be abolished to save on research and testing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Birth_defects_crisis

The FDA tests both food and drugs for both if the product works as advertised and what harm it does.

I advocate that the FDA only determine the harm. If they advertise the moon, let them live or die by amazon reviews.

Do you recall that for a time Cheerios Cereal was stating that eating this cereal provided health benefits? They were dragged off and told to remove that. Because it's not a drug.

The drug lobby pressures the FDA to keep the low cost drugs that you pointed to earlier from being approved, the doctors because of health regulations can't prescribe medicines until they meet FDA approval as per insurance mandates. This can also be noted with the Avastin BS.

The pergesterone BS is also similar, a disease is caused by a horomone deficiency in females. A pharmaceutical comes up with a synthetic solution, cures the problem. But the side effects are worse than if it went untreated. (This is similar to a Neurocondition I have, the treatment recommends Inderal which is the only approved treatment, which is strangely approved, perhaps if I took more medication to counteract the side effects but at the end I'll have a drug cocktail every morning [while each one of those drugs that counteract the inderal side effects have their own side effects]).

Meanwhile a company makes the same horomone naturally, however since it is not a drug, it can't go through the approval process. Since it isn't approved it can't advertise that it does in fact cure the initial problem. The treatment is IIRC 600 a month (for the synthetic) to your insurance company or 15 dollars out of pocket (for the unapproved solution).

Blablahb:

Don't confuse conspiracy theories with arguments alright? It's also demonstrably untrue. For one thing our system of heavily regulated mandatory private insurance has created the College of Health Insurerers (CVZ in Dutch) who bargain about costs collectively. They're in a very powerfull position towards pharmaceutical companies, because if the CVZ doesn't strike a deal with you, your drug is not going to get used anywhere. As a result they have a powerfull negotiation position and prices are kept down as much as is possible in that market.

It works the same here. Only with the FDA, people that work at the FDA that have private sector experience come from you guessed it the largest companies in the drug industry. It's much like watching the game that is played at the Treasury department, the Federal Reserve bank of New York, and either the a Goldman Sachs employee or one of the megabanks.

Blablahb:

The regulations of the medical market benefit almost everyone, but mostly the consumer slash person in need of healthcare, and secondly healthcare professionals who don't have to be devious business managers in addition to doctors, before they can go about their business. The regulations create clarity and fairness on the market.

If you feel it will be a good regulation codify it into law, don't let some agency do it on their own. Congress is making itself irrelevant. I can't hold some bureaucrat at a regulatory agency responsible like I can a lawmaker.

You are making an unaccountable entity with a monopoly of force.

On US flights they have that silly rule about electronic devices in the first few minutes of flight, this is not a law, this is a regulation. Even though it has been proven repeatedly that this fear that the regulation was put in place for has been debunked, the legacy remains.

aelreth:
So I can require you to buy guns too? After all your security should be your own responsibility.

Guns increase the amount of unsafety and violence, so that's a silly comparison. But you'll note how you're required to pay taxes to finance law enforcement, and can't opt out of paying by saying "I don't call the police if I become a victim of crime".

Likewise contributing your fair share to healthcare is not something optional either.

aelreth:
I advocate that the FDA only determine the harm. If they advertise the moon, let them live or die by amazon reviews.

Why on earth would you want to endanger thousands of lives like that?

Your reference is incorrect by the way. You can apply for testing for any product, purely natural or synthetic. The trick is ussually that if something is advertised as 'purely natural, better than pills', then you're dealing with quackery and fraud most of the time. Obviously you can't get quackery approved for medical purposes.

aelreth:
It works the same here. Only with the FDA, people that work at the FDA that have private sector experience come from you guessed it the largest companies in the drug industry. It's much like watching the game that is played at the Treasury department, the Federal Reserve bank of New York, and either the a Goldman Sachs employee or one of the megabanks.

I don't have time for conspiracy theories, sorry.

aelreth:
If you feel it will be a good regulation codify it into law, don't let some agency do it on their own. Congress is making itself irrelevant. I can't hold some bureaucrat at a regulatory agency responsible like I can a lawmaker.

But congress are not people appointed because they're so smart or knowledgeable about the subject. They're people appointed because they convinced 51% or more that they should be on that seat, often using strategies that have nothing to do with their wisdom. Good example is how you can still get republicans elected at all despite their total lack of solutions for just about anything, but the US budget most of all. How come they still get people elected while they only offer more of the failed small government conservatism that got the US in this mess? Because people don't vote for the best candidate and don't have all the information.

So you create agencies like the FDA which do have that knowhow which the elected officials haven't, and you order them to come up with some arrangement, they take care of the technical details, elected officials approve or disapprove based on the evaluation. That's how responsible governing works.

A good example of why what you're saying would only end in disaster is found among another outlandish claim by other conservatives: They want to abolish FEMA and other forms of disaster response, claiming it's somehow bad.
Me, I think those conservatives had better been drunk when they came up with that idea, because it's laughable. The effectiveness of those agencies has been proven in numbers like handing out clean water after Katrina, which prevented epidemics from breaking out.

And much like your claims, they had no arguments to offer why the free market would somehow magically make everything alright after they fucked up the working solution.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked