Ok dude, I am gonna repeat this one more time. I NEVER said US is more efficient when it comes to healthcare compared to other countries. What I have been trying to explain to you is that it is an awful system, it is inefficient and not the best the solution.Lets start with efficency, other countries cover everyone and spend less than us. How is that not more efficient?
Your articles (2 minutes to google apparently left you no time to read them) do not state what you keep saying about them in comparison to the US, even the "france" one.
Obamacare will increase the premiums. I have been saying that since forever.
Long wait times..
Such were the waiting times, that they pulled Sweden down the European ranking despite having technically advanced healthcare at its disposal.
Actually seems you do have that problem. I have always argued that we need to find a best possible solution and not a better one. I have argued my points and backed them up while you keep repeating the same thing over and over again like a broken record. I have clearly stated the problems which need to be addressed and you just keep babbling something about covering everyone without any idea on how that system would work. If you still want to be a part of this conversation then act like a grown up and argue your points.
Just because they spend less than us does not mean its sustainable. Do you remember the part about deficits? They usually put a strain on the government. Duh..
Now let me ask you, do you think health care would be more affordable if there were free market reforms? For example removing unnecessary regulations or increasing competition between drug companies.
Simple answer.
A) I'm on a smartphone at work so please forgive any errors in advance. I know the Netherlands has a 52% tax rate according to the article I posted a while back. The author made it sound like it was not a progressive rate either. I'll see what info I can find on that when I'm back home. Do you really think that our gov't will be able to run a similar program for less?
Ok so you are telling me it is not a problem to run billion dollar deficits. It is sustainable to be trillions of dollars in debt?
There's nothing to dodge because it's not a serious question and there will never be a "correct" answer because the question is so vague. You might as well ask how many bricks you need to build a house without mentioning how big the house is or what kind of bricks you're using. If someone gives an answer, then you'll just change the context because you were vague to begin with. It's a
ing red herring and only a fool would fall for that lame rhetorical trick. You teabaggers have been pulling this bullshit on this forum for years.a) I am not engaging you on whether deficits are ok or not. The founding fathers went into debt to pay for the revolution, should they not have done that?
A)You are not engaging because you know the effect of deficits. The founding fathers were starting a revolution against a tyrant king, try not compare two completely different things. One being an event that completely changed history, the other not so much.
I said it is "better". To clarify, it is debatable. It has some good parts like being more efficient but in reality not by a large margin. It is not wrong to strive for a better solution as a matter of fact thats what I am trying to suggest. A better and even best solution I know of.
A) I am not the one ignoring the subject, The concept of a deficit is meaningless when you point out the facts other systems spend less. You are also ignoring they are sustainable by dint of the fact they have been around in multiple countries for a lifetime.
A) Deficits do not matter because other countries spend less? I do not think any reasonable person would agree with you on that. Good luck trying to argue that though. I am glad to know that your definition of sustainability is to spend more money than the total revenue. Billions or trillions of dollars in debt is no biggie. Though I do wonder why if this system is so good then why are governments not fully outlawing private insurance or you know trying to decrease the amount of deficits?
ing crushed you. If you do not want to engage then do me a favor and move on.
it it'll be for the better. They were too Liberal in thinking money will always be there, until it really isn't..You're absolutely right. The LEFT should stop trying to pass 20 year old Republican ideas and promote more leftist policies.I'm glad this is happening now. If there was ever a better indictment of the left it's when this shit hits the fan. Granted it will be somewhat blown out of proportion by the average American - But
Single payer now right friends?! Who's idea was it when they saw countries struggling with a single payer, state takeover of health insurance and wanted to limit the money flow more and put the onus on poor, unemployed and skill-less teenagers to pay for granddad's pension? Holy cluter
You truly gotta go full Liberal to achieve maximum mediocrity.
Hahahahahahahahaa......vague? How? Just tell me at what tax rate the gov't goes from building necessary infrastructure and defense to becoming confiscatory wealth redistributors. Reform the tax code, cancel ALL deductions and loopholes, I'm in. But take more than a quarter of a person's salary and I have a problem. Should we truly work 3 months of the year for the gov't? Look up how many households pay zero federal income tax, even get refunds, and tell me with a straight face that the rates should be higher. We do have income inequality issues in this country, but stealing from ambitious people to give to lazy, unlucky, or stupid people is not the answer. End corporate welfare, open the true free market. Capitalism has raised the standard of living of more people than any other system out there. Provide a good or service for a fair price and encourage competition. How to separate the insanely greedy from that equation is the hard part. Msutt, do you have an answer to the top tax rate question?There's nothing to dodge because it's not a serious question and there will never be a "correct" answer because the question is so vague. You might as well ask how many bricks you need to build a house without mentioning how big the house is or what kind of bricks you're using. If someone gives an answer, then you'll just change the context because you were vague to begin with. It's a
You want an answer to your question? Well here it is:
GRAPEFRUIT
A) You aren't making sense. Pointing out there is a deficit is fine, but if you think anyone is just going to ignore the whole subject on who spends less and what is sustainable you are delusional.A) Deficits do not matter because other countries spend less? I do not think any reasonable person would agree with you on that. Good luck trying to argue that though. I am glad to know that your definition of sustainability is to spend more money than the total revenue. Billions or trillions of dollars in debt is no biggie. Though I do wonder why if this system is so good then why are governments not fully outlawing private insurance or you know trying to decrease the amount of deficits?
B) So you do agree that if a single payer system does not cover a particular type of treatment than the citizen can go bankrupt if he has hardship paying for that treatment? Also how is high taxes not a point? Costs do not magically disappear, we do not live in LA LA land.
C) Passed the advance course huh? Too bad you did not realize that I am actually an econ major so I too passed the "advanced" course. Tell me then Mr. Economics, how do price controls affect the market? In this case what kind of affect does Obamacare have on price premiums?
D) And apparently we have cheaper drugs than Canada but unlike you I actually linked FDA's site to back up my claim. And why do you think those drugs are free for the poor? Cheaper to manufacture or because someone else is paying for it?
E) What did I ignore? You want me to list the questions I have asked of you but you seem to have dismissed? My ideas do not cover everyone because health insurance is not a right. We have discussed this before and I have
A) I am not ignoring it. Pointing out billions of dollars in deficit is a huge problem but you seem not to think so..
But its elective so w/e.
A) I am not engaging you on this any more. If the best you can do is say "deficits in actual systems are bad my extremely hypothetical system wouldnt have them" then there is no point.
A) Common sense makes your brain hurt? Also I never said that my system would have them, though there would not be any. Why? Well because there would be no government system of health. SImple ain't it?
A) I am not engaging you on this any more. If the best you can do is say "deficits in actual systems are bad my extremely hypothetical system wouldnt have them" then there is no point.
A) You are right. Deficits and debt do not mean a thing if people are getting what they want. Heck I guess I guess I could go live off credit cards for the rest of my life.
A) Well at least I win this one.
Really? Tell me more about this creationism and homepathic medicine stuff. What economic leaning do you have? Keynesianism?
Shall I ask you a few questions and if you fail should I therefore tell you to go back to school?
That is unfortunate. I don't agree with Mises on everything, but the Austrian school of thought is not without some valid points.
As someone who is in favor of a brand of single-payer system, I'm curious what you base the "moral" part of that on.
I think it goes against American and individual rights. Taking money from one group of people and giving it to the others in the form of healthcare. As I stated before numerous times, the major role of the government should be to protect individual rights. How can it when some start to demand healthcare as a right?
In reference to Smith, I highly suggest you read what I said in the previous comment. Selective ignorance only makes your arguments weaker.
I literally cannot be bothered to slog through your posts for something that you might have mentioned relevant to what Adam Smith said about Universal Healthcare.
Fantastic! We reached a point where it is too hard to read a comment from the previous page.
How is this different than taking money from one group of people and giving it to others in the form of police protection, roads, schools, libraries, etc.?
In a way its not. All those things but the police should be privatized or done at a local level.
You have one SERIOUS persecution complex, buddy!
