or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem - Page 4

post #121 of 573
Thread Starter 
But seriously, folks. One has to wonder why government continues to get bigger and more powerful, regardless of which political party runs things.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #122 of 573
Thread Starter 
Treasury Shields Citigroup as Deletions Undercut Disclosure

Stories like this make me physically ill.

When is the last time Obama talked about more government transparency? The campaign trail?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #123 of 573
Who is the vice president? Ask America stumps voters
By Mike Byhoff Mon Oct 25, 3:21 am ET

Quote:
Do you know who the vice president is? The speaker of the House? How many U.S. senators are there?

Don't know the answers to these questions? If not, you're not alone. As the Yahoo! News Ask America van travels the country asking people about this election season's hot issues, we pulled a pop quiz on some of them, stumping many with basic civics questions.

Check out some of people's answers, and maybe learn something for yourself.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_askame...-stumps-voters



THE YOUTH AMERICA FAIL GOV. 1
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #124 of 573
Thread Starter 

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #125 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But seriously, folks. One has to wonder why government continues to get bigger and more powerful, regardless of which political party runs things.

short answer by George Bush: "America is addicted to oil!"

As I mentioned in the climategate thread our oil dependence has put us into a catch 22. We need a massive gov to defend our addiction. We have to kill people and destroy their land half the globe away so we can mow our lawns and drive our 7 mpg freak cars.

If you are serious about small government take control of your own energy supply. We spend 55% of our budget on defense, mostly defending sources of energy overseas pretty much the stupidest thing any country can do. This has created most of our trade and budget deficits. If you want less taxes take control of your own energy supply.
But wahhh it's so expensive, mommy, give me titty ooooh, where's my pacifier. ... go make money so you can afford it, this is capitalism, man up or shut up, or be called lOOOOOser.

We have created an idiot spiral. We subsidize disease causing foods and complain about high health care cost. We subsidize oil and coal with trillions and with the lives of our youth but complain about the epa. Brilliant, aren't we.
......
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #126 of 573

And the punch line is : NEW COMPETITION

The market speaks loudly. The US is clueless.

Again referring to my climate gate post.
IDIOT DENIERS HAVE BLOCKED FINANCING US DEVELOPMENT OF GREEN TECHNOLOGIES FOR YEARS. WE HAVE MISSED THE BOAT.
THANKS GUYS!
Your brilliance will forever be remembered.

2 Trillion down the drain trying to fight guys with exploding underwear. FOR OIL THAT IS DESTRUCTIVE IN EVERY SENSE. HUMAN LIVES, ENVIRONMENT, CULTURE, PEACE, .. the only thing immune seems to be idiocy and oil company bank accounts.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #127 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Treasury Shields Citigroup as Deletions Undercut Disclosure

Stories like this make me physically ill.

When is the last time Obama talked about more government transparency? The campaign trail?

The weirdest thing about you small government guys is that you care so much about government. Only people who are in love get "angry" at the thing they are in love with..????

I actually give a shit about it.
I use government in what ever shape it comes.
If you want less government stop loving it so much.
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #128 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

The weirdest thing about you small government guys is that you care so much about government. Only people who are in love get "angry" at the thing they are in love with..????

Ahhh...now Wormhole is trying his hand at facile pop-psychology analysis.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

I use government in what ever shape it comes.

Thanks for admitting your mercantilist and authoritarian tendencies.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Wormhole View Post

If you want less government stop loving it so much.

Uh huh.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #129 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post




Uh huh.

¢:
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
yes I want oil genocide.
Reply
post #130 of 573
Progressives don't really get progress, but the American people do

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #131 of 573
Thread Starter 
White House Staffers Got a Bigger Raise Than You Did Last Year

Quote:
Did you get a raise last year? Seventy-four percent of White House staffers did, according a Gawker analysis of the White House's annual salary reports to Congress. Probably for the great job they're doing with the economy.

That's our tax money, folks.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #132 of 573


Perhaps inspired by Escher.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #133 of 573
Thread Starter 
That's preferable to single-party dominance, IMO.

Both parties want to grow government, just in different ways. If they're at a stalemate, they can't do any more damage (hopefully) and give the American people enough time to work our way out of their mess.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #134 of 573
Marine whistleblower Franz Gayl: Security clearance removal is retaliation
Quote:
Franz Gayl made a name for himself a few years ago as a Marine Corps whistleblower, a civilian scientist who helped push the Pentagon to shift its Iraqi weapons strategy. Senators called him a hero for disclosures that helped get heavily armored vehicles known as MRAPs to the battlefield....

Gayl's alleged offense - described in official documents - was inserting a USB device into a computer containing classified information twice in 2008 and then failing to turn over the device to a supervisor. They first raised this concern in March, and no security leaks have been alleged.

Gayl and some former colleagues say that these charges were trumped up, the culmination of a three-year pattern of retaliation by the Corps' leadership for the embarrassment that he caused and his continued efforts to hold officials accountable for ignoring an urgent request for help by soldiers under fire....
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #135 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Both parties want to grow government, just in different ways.

True. One grows, the other metastasizes.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #136 of 573
Another government success story comes to an end.

P.S. For those unaware, Chicago has a rather bad history like this.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #137 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Another casualty of the so-called "War on Poverty".

Let's let these guys manage our healthcare, shall we?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #138 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Another casualty of the so-called "War on Poverty".

Let's let these guys manage our healthcare, shall we?

This doesn't really make sense.

Is it the principle you have a problem with?

Because the American health care system isn't as good as a dozen state-run systems around the world. I mean, it's the best in the world if you're rich, but it's way, way down there for everyone else.

No arguments about this, right? Surely not. State-run health care can be superb on outcomes, it's popular and it's cheaper than your system. Everyone loves a state-run system. This isn't up for debate anymore. We've been through this a million times.

So if it's the particular ministry or body you have a problem with, you'd be better starting threads calling for reform rather than dismissing the entire principle out of ideologically-driven dogma.
post #139 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

This doesn't really make sense.

Is it the principle you have a problem with?

Because the American health care system isn't as good as a dozen state-run systems around the world. I mean, it's the best in the world if you're rich, but it's way, way down there for everyone else.

No arguments about this, right? Surely not. State-run health care can be superb on outcomes, it's popular and it's cheaper than your system. Everyone loves a state-run system. This isn't up for debate anymore. We've been through this a million times.

So if it's the particular ministry or body you have a problem with, you'd be better starting threads calling for reform rather than dismissing the entire principle out of ideologically-driven dogma.

Of course it's up for debate.

Countries with government-run healthcare (like the U.K.) are having to make drastic spending cuts in other areas and raise taxes just to keep their healthcare programs running. And you are trying to tell me with a straight face that it's cheaper?

Is government-run healthcare so different in principle than the "War on Poverty"? They are both based on the premise that it is the government's responsibility to provide for the people. From each according to his means to each according to his needs, right?

My country was founded on the premise that it is the individual's responsibility - his right - to provide for himself, and that the government's responsibility is to protect that right.

The problem is the U.S. doesn't have a truly free-market healthcare system anymore. If it did, it would be the best system in the world without question.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #140 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Of course it's up for debate.

Countries with government-run healthcare (like the U.K.) are having to make drastic spending cuts in other areas and raise taxes just to keep their healthcare programs running. And you are trying to tell me with a straight face that it's cheaper?

Is government-run healthcare so different in principle than the "War on Poverty"? They are both based on the premise that it is the government's responsibility to provide for the people. From each according to his means to each according to his needs, right?

My country was founded on the premise that it is the individual's responsibility - his right - to provide for himself, and that the government's responsibility is to protect that right.

The problem is the U.S. doesn't have a truly free-market healthcare system anymore. If it did, it would be the best system in the world without question.

If you're arguing about this, you should appraise yourself of the facts first.

A single payer system would save American states billions every year and would end bankruptcy over medical costs.

You know, of course, how many people were made bankrupt over medical bills in Britain last year?

0.

But we've been over this. The facts aren't really important. You have your American Magic Dust which makes you Uniquely Special and everyone else has a state-run health system which is better than yours, and I think that's a good deal for the rest of us.
post #141 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

If you're arguing about this, you should appraise yourself of the facts first.

A single payer system would save American states billions every year and would end bankruptcy over medical costs.

You can't prove this, of course. Nobody can. But it sounds cool, so we should do it.

Quote:
You know, of course, how many people were made bankrupt over medical bills in Britain last year?

0.

You're correct of course. All of Britain is going bankrupt over medical bills so that one person doesn't have to.

Quote:
But we've been over this. The facts aren't really important. You have your American Magic Dust which makes you Uniquely Special and everyone else has a state-run health system which is better than yours, and I think that's a good deal for the rest of us.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #142 of 573
Thread Starter 
US to bail out EU

Mumbo, you should thank me for paying for your "free" healthcare because your government can't afford it.

Actually, we should all thank China.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #143 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

US to bail out EU

Mumbo, you should thank me for paying for your "free" healthcare because your government can't afford it.

Actually, we should all thank China.

But we're not bankrupt because of state run healthcare. If you are suggesting that, that is a lie.

The following is the truth, and was the truth when the crisis started.

We're broke for the same reason you are: banks were betting on insurance defaults, funding precarious mortgages on artificially-inflated real estate and trading in toxic assets, among other things, and they broke the exchange of money between people who buy stuff and people who provide stuff while bonds traders made billions off the collapse, and then our governments gave billions of our money to the people who broke the economy in the first place.

Look it up. Google for 'causes of the financial crisis.' Go on. Have you forgotten, or did you never bother to find out?

We did not go broke because we fund our health insurance and hospitals through tax.
post #144 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

But we're not bankrupt because of state run healthcare. If you are suggesting that, that is a lie.

The following is the truth, and was the truth when the crisis started.

We're broke for the same reason you are: banks were betting on insurance defaults, funding precarious mortgages on artificially-inflated real estate and trading in toxic assets, among other things, and they broke the exchange of money between people who buy stuff and people who provide stuff while bonds traders made billions off the collapse, and then our governments gave billions of our money to the people who broke the economy in the first place.

Look it up. Google for 'causes of the financial crisis.' Go on. Have you forgotten, or did you never bother to find out?

We did not go broke because we fund our health insurance and hospitals through tax.

Please quote me where I claimed the cause of your bankruptcy was solely NHS.

But you better make a correction to Wikipedia ASAP, because it's claiming (albeit vaguely) that the NHS has been running a deficit in recent years and it could be as high as £7bn in 2010.

But I'm sure this is all due to the evil banks who caused the recession, and could in no way be contributing to the financial problems faced by the UK.

Quote:
As each division of the NHS is required to break even at the end of each financial year, the service should in theory never be in deficit. However in recent years overspends have meant that, on a 'going-concern' (normal trading) basis, these conditions have been consistently, and increasingly, breached. Former Secretary of State for Health Patricia Hewitt consistently asserted that the NHS would be in balance at the end of the financial year 2007-8; however, a study by Professor Nick Bosanquet for the Reform think tank predicts a true annual deficit of nearly £7bn in 2010.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #145 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Please quote me where I claimed the cause of your bankruptcy was solely NHS.

Um... OK:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You're correct of course. All of Britain is going bankrupt over medical bills so that one person doesn't have to.

Meanwhile:

Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

But you better make a correction to Wikipedia ASAP, because it's claiming (albeit vaguely) that the NHS has been running a deficit in recent years and it could be as high as £7bn in 2010.

But I'm sure this is all due to the evil banks who caused the recession, and could in no way be contributing to the financial problems faced by the UK.

GOOD LORD, NO, NOT SEVEN BILLION.

The cost of the bailout was 850 billion.


And while you're defending the banks, who WERE RESPONSIBLE, the NHS did not even contribute to the crisis. It isn't a "deficit". While I'm sure it can be improved and made more efficient, and waste eliminated, it's not supposed to make a profit, it's the National Health Service, and it's a better, more dignified and (I'd argue) more moral system than yours.
post #146 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

Um... OK:



Meanwhile:



GOOD LORD, NO, NOT SEVEN BILLION.

The cost of the bailout was 850 billion.


And while you're defending the banks, who WERE RESPONSIBLE, the NHS did not even contribute to the crisis. It isn't a "deficit". While I'm sure it can be improved and made more efficient, and waste eliminated, it's not supposed to make a profit, it's the National Health Service, and it's a better, more dignified and (I'd argue) more moral system than yours.

You claimed nobody is going bankrupt due to medical bills. I countered that your entire country is going bankrupt trying to sustain NHS. This is a fact.

And now please quote me where I defended banks! Sheesh.

You are the one who claimed government-run healthcare saves money, not me. NHS isn't even breaking even! So tell me: how is running a deficit saving money?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #147 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

If you're arguing about this, you should appraise yourself of the facts first.

A single payer system would save American states billions every year and would end bankruptcy over medical costs.

You know, of course, how many people were made bankrupt over medical bills in Britain last year?

0.

But we've been over this. The facts aren't really important. You have your American Magic Dust which makes you Uniquely Special and everyone else has a state-run health system which is better than yours, and I think that's a good deal for the rest of us.

I want to address the notion that only the "rich" can afford our healthcare system. Specifically: That's bullshit. My wife and I are middle class and frankly, I can't imagine getting better care. Granted, I am a teacher, so my benefits are a bit better than other professions. However, even if my wife's insurance, we'd still have great care at a reasonable (read: minimal) cost to us. The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of people in US have health insurance. Out of 300 million people, we have about 10 million truly "uninsured," not counting illegal immigrants and people that choose not to have coverage. The 10 million includes people that cannot get and/or afford insurance. This population needs to be addressed, certainly. But let's not pretend that only the rich can get quality health care.

A personal anecdote: I was just at a spine specialist today, at a major hospital. I paid $15.00 as a co-pay. My premiums are about $50 per paycheck (bi-weekly). Do you really think that a teacher and an auto/property insurance claims specialist are "rich?" If so, you're kidding yourself.

Oh, and as for single-payer: Taxes in the UK are far higher than in the US, and your healthcare system is losing billions. Why in the hell would we want to go to that?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #148 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You claimed nobody is going bankrupt due to medical bills. I countered that your entire country is going bankrupt trying to sustain NHS. This is a fact.

So it's the 7 billion for NHS and not the 850 billion for the bailout. Right. That makes perfect sense...



























in BIZARRO WORLD

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #149 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

So it's the 7 billion for NHS and not the 850 billion for the bailout. Right. That makes perfect sense...

He claimed NHS keeps people from going bankrupt due to medical bills. I stated that the entire country is going bankrupt and having to make drastic cuts elsewhere to keep paying for those medical bills.

He claimed NHS is saving money. I showed it is running a deficit.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #150 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

He claimed NHS keeps people from going bankrupt due to medical bills. I stated that the entire country is going bankrupt and having to make drastic cuts elsewhere to keep paying for those medical bills.

He claimed NHS is saving money. I showed it is running a deficit.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The one bigger deficit is worse than the other big deficit....

After all 7 is way smaller than 850. In Monopoly money....
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #151 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

You claimed nobody is going bankrupt due to medical bills. I countered that your entire country is going bankrupt trying to sustain NHS. This is a fact.

And now please quote me where I defended banks! Sheesh.

You are the one who claimed government-run healthcare saves money, not me. NHS isn't even breaking even! So tell me: how is running a deficit saving money?

No, Britain is not going broke because of the NHS. Britain can afford the NHS. It pays for it with taxes. Britain is broke because of the financial crisis. I listed some of the reasons for the cause of the crisis above. Just re-read that post.

You are wrong. I am right. That is because the facts I have cited are pertinent and correct and you are insisting something incorrect in the face of all the evidence. I am sorry for you.

Secondly. I said that a single payer system would save YOU billions. Compared to your present system. That is why I used the word 'states'.

If you had a system like ours, or France's, or Sweden's, you would save money and treat more people.
post #152 of 573
I wish people would take the money they pay for health insurance premiums (along with the money their employer pays), add that amount to the taxes they pay the government, and see what the combined tax + healthcare rate is. Guaranteed we could get a single payer system without charging that much. Guaranteed.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #153 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I wish people would take the money they pay for health insurance premiums (along with the money their employer pays), add that amount to the taxes they pay the government, and see what the combined tax + healthcare rate is. Guaranteed we could get a single payer system without charging that much. Guaranteed.


You might be right about that. But that's looking at the issue in a bubble of sorts. The US healthcare system has become among the most advanced in the world (not our insurance system, but our actual healthcare system) because of free market principles. You'll end up destroying the incentive to innovate.

The way I see it, single payer is the wrong way to go for this country. I think what we need to do is find a way to 1) Change the paradigm/expectation of what insurance covers (e.g. why does it cover simple well visits and ENT visits?), and 2) Get employers out of the healthcare business. If we stop covering every detail of care, premiums will go down dramatically.

A good analogy here is found by asking how expensive one's care insurance would be if it covered gas, oil changes, tolls and car washes. That's really what we're doing in our healthcare system now. The result is that millions of people work for benefits more than salary. This, in turn, makes them less motivated and productive employees, which of course begets less economic activity.

We need to get employers out of healthcare. Let everyone buy their own coverage, which would be partially tax deductible. Instead of $1000 a month policies, we'd have $100-200 a month policies that covered hospital stays, emergency room visits, major medical events (cancer, heart problems, neurology, internal medicine). Then we'd also be able to keep supplemental insurance, such as is provided by the AFLACs of the world.

Of course, the above will never happen, because insurance companies make too much money from the current system.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #154 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You might be right about that. But that's looking at the issue in a bubble of sorts. The US healthcare system has become among the most advanced in the world (not our insurance system, but our actual healthcare system) because of free market principles. You'll end up destroying the incentive to innovate.

The way I see it, single payer is the wrong way to go for this country. I think what we need to do is find a way to 1) Change the paradigm/expectation of what insurance covers (e.g. why does it cover simple well visits and ENT visits?), and 2) Get employers out of the healthcare business. If we stop covering every detail of care, premiums will go down dramatically.

A good analogy here is found by asking how expensive one's care insurance would be if it covered gas, oil changes, tolls and car washes. That's really what we're doing in our healthcare system now. The result is that millions of people work for benefits more than salary. This, in turn, makes them less motivated and productive employees, which of course begets less economic activity.

We need to get employers out of healthcare. Let everyone buy their own coverage, which would be partially tax deductible. Instead of $1000 a month policies, we'd have $100-200 a month policies that covered hospital stays, emergency room visits, major medical events (cancer, heart problems, neurology, internal medicine). Then we'd also be able to keep supplemental insurance, such as is provided by the AFLACs of the world.

Of course, the above will never happen, because insurance companies make too much money from the current system.

You pretty much have it right here. Add to this the ability to buy insurance across state lines and a little more competition among medical care/service providers and you have it nailed almost 100%.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #155 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You pretty much have it right here. Add to this the ability to buy insurance across state lines and a little more competition among medical care/service providers and you have it nailed almost 100%.

I agree with both of those points. I just didn't address them. Competition is the key.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #156 of 573
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mumbo Jumbo View Post

No, Britain is not going broke because of the NHS. Britain can afford the NHS. It pays for it with taxes. Britain is broke because of the financial crisis. I listed some of the reasons for the cause of the crisis above. Just re-read that post.

Britain is running NHS at a deficit. It cannot afford NHS.

Quote:
You are wrong. I am right. That is because the facts I have cited are pertinent and correct and you are insisting something incorrect in the face of all the evidence. I am sorry for you.

This seems to be the standard rebuttal of the modern left to any argument they are losing.

Quote:
Secondly. I said that a single payer system would save YOU billions. Compared to your present system. That is why I used the word 'states'.

If you had a system like ours, or France's, or Sweden's, you would save money and treat more people.

It didn't save you billions. Why would it save us billions?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #157 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You might be right about that. But that's looking at the issue in a bubble of sorts. The US healthcare system has become among the most advanced in the world (not our insurance system, but our actual healthcare system) because of free market principles. You'll end up destroying the incentive to innovate.

I'm going to stop you right here and say you've made a causal flaw. A free market existed. Advancement existed. But the one being the cause for the other has no support.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #158 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

I'm going to stop you right here and say you've made a causal flaw. A free market existed. Advancement existed. But the one being the cause for the other has no support.

Well you are going to have to prove that he is wrong. Isn't that how it works around here anymore?
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #159 of 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Britain is running NHS at a deficit. It cannot afford NHS.



This seems to be the standard rebuttal of the modern left to any argument they are losing.



It didn't save you billions. Why would it save us billions?

Britain is not going broke because of the NHS. That is not true. I know you want it to be true, but it is not true.

Since it is not true, why don’t you stop saying it?

Repeat after me: “Britain is broke, largely, because the state gave billions to private banks to preserve liquidity and thinking that it would prevent the devaluing of investors’ capital and a sovereign default, and not because of the NHS.”

That is true. What is not true is that Britain is going broke because it has a national health service. When you say that, you are talking fucking bollocks. Instead of talking fucking bollocks, why don’t you say something true? “Facts do not matter to me, jazzguru, at all.”

Something like that.

I know this is true, because you keep saying that Britain is broke because of the NHS. When it isn't.
post #160 of 573
Thread Starter 
I'm saying Britain cannot sustain or support NHS and that it is not saving them money.

I'm saying that Britain is having to make drastic cuts in other areas to keep NHS running even at a deficit.

That is what I am saying. I can repeat, if necessary.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government is not the solution to our problem, it IS the problem