Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
Michael Moore takes it to CNN
- Thread starter Ikohn4ever
- Start date
dragonreborn23
Banned
Hehe, yeah I don't think I've heard to many media outlets or news organizations praise him for this. No one seems to care that we do have some serious flaws in our health care system that we could fix. Everything I've seen seems to just be about pointing out statistics and flaws in his movie. They must think that if they point out Moore's flaws (even personal flaws such as being overweight/ Every time Glenn Beck mentions him he makes a crack about the guys weight) they will some how misdirect Americans who have no health insurance into thinking that our system is perfect and Moore is a jackass. It's too bad because underneath his political views are some very well made points about taking elements from other health care systems around the world (not complete overhaul) and inserting the best parts of them into our own system. Not a horrible, left wing idea to want health care for everyone.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
A lot of people (including Moore) seem to forget the level of care that can be had if you do have insurance. Some of the best treatment centers in the world, bar none.
Now, you give everyone universal healthcare who can't afford it, what happens to those high standards for treatment like cancer? Money either gets taken away from that stuff to enable everyone, or those treatments skyrocket where insurance won't cover them anymore.
Cheap, excellent healthcare for 300 million people will never happen, and the worse part is I think all the canidates know it.
Now, you give everyone universal healthcare who can't afford it, what happens to those high standards for treatment like cancer? Money either gets taken away from that stuff to enable everyone, or those treatments skyrocket where insurance won't cover them anymore.
Cheap, excellent healthcare for 300 million people will never happen, and the worse part is I think all the canidates know it.
Ikohn4ever
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 5 (100%)
[quote name='CocheseUGA']A lot of people (including Moore) seem to forget the level of care that can be had if you do have insurance. Some of the best treatment centers in the world, bar none.
Now, you give everyone universal healthcare who can't afford it, what happens to those high standards for treatment like cancer? Money either gets taken away from that stuff to enable everyone, or those treatments skyrocket where insurance won't cover them anymore.
Cheap, excellent healthcare for 300 million people will never happen, and the worse part is I think all the canidates know it.[/QUOTE]
people can opt out of universal health care, its for the people who have real poor insurance or none at all. The rich can pay for better more efficient health care, or can accept the universal version
ohh and heres the link to the 2nd part of the interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hq6Js9Rs
Now, you give everyone universal healthcare who can't afford it, what happens to those high standards for treatment like cancer? Money either gets taken away from that stuff to enable everyone, or those treatments skyrocket where insurance won't cover them anymore.
Cheap, excellent healthcare for 300 million people will never happen, and the worse part is I think all the canidates know it.[/QUOTE]
people can opt out of universal health care, its for the people who have real poor insurance or none at all. The rich can pay for better more efficient health care, or can accept the universal version
ohh and heres the link to the 2nd part of the interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hq6Js9Rs
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']people can opt out of universal health care, its for the people who have real poor insurance or none at all. The rich can pay for better more efficient health care, or can accept the universal version
ohh and heres the link to the 2nd part of the interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hq6Js9Rs[/QUOTE]
The problem is, who pays for those people to have healthcare? We do now (taxes) and we will then (higher premiums, co-pays, optionals).
That's the point I made in my original post, and I thought it was pretty straightforward.
ohh and heres the link to the 2nd part of the interview http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F91hq6Js9Rs[/QUOTE]
The problem is, who pays for those people to have healthcare? We do now (taxes) and we will then (higher premiums, co-pays, optionals).
That's the point I made in my original post, and I thought it was pretty straightforward.
[quote name='CocheseUGA']A lot of people (including Moore) seem to forget the level of care that can be had if you do have insurance. Some of the best treatment centers in the world, bar none.
Now, you give everyone universal healthcare who can't afford it, what happens to those high standards for treatment like cancer? Money either gets taken away from that stuff to enable everyone, or those treatments skyrocket where insurance won't cover them anymore.
Cheap, excellent healthcare for 300 million people will never happen, and the worse part is I think all the canidates know it.[/QUOTE]
That is exactly the crux of the matter. Universal health care, especially if run by the government is not a panacea. Everyone praises the Canadian health care system, overlooking the fact that people have to wait months in order to get studies and elective procedures done and there is such a wait that Canadians come to the U.S simply to get faster care. People also don't realize that the reason drugs are so cheap in Canada is that the U.S. essentially subsidizes their costs since Canada price controls their drugs so the pharmaceutical companies have to make up for the lost revenue from countries that actually have a free market system like the U.S.. The U.S. hands down has the finest quality of health care available. However we suck at the basic stuff like preventative medicine because we're focused more on tertiary care. Just to give you an idea of how whacked this is, Medicare will not cover for annual physical exams, you can only bill Medicare for an acute or specific medical condition. So they actually discourage people from getting regular maintenance checkups which could have picked up that cancer early or risk factors for a heart attack early and instead pay 10 times as much to treat it after it happens.
Rather than complete universal health care, the government should simply make annual checkups free, giving people an incentive to see their doctor regularly rather than discouraging it. How many of us see their doctor every year? However that annual physical could save billions of dollars down the line.
Now, you give everyone universal healthcare who can't afford it, what happens to those high standards for treatment like cancer? Money either gets taken away from that stuff to enable everyone, or those treatments skyrocket where insurance won't cover them anymore.
Cheap, excellent healthcare for 300 million people will never happen, and the worse part is I think all the canidates know it.[/QUOTE]
That is exactly the crux of the matter. Universal health care, especially if run by the government is not a panacea. Everyone praises the Canadian health care system, overlooking the fact that people have to wait months in order to get studies and elective procedures done and there is such a wait that Canadians come to the U.S simply to get faster care. People also don't realize that the reason drugs are so cheap in Canada is that the U.S. essentially subsidizes their costs since Canada price controls their drugs so the pharmaceutical companies have to make up for the lost revenue from countries that actually have a free market system like the U.S.. The U.S. hands down has the finest quality of health care available. However we suck at the basic stuff like preventative medicine because we're focused more on tertiary care. Just to give you an idea of how whacked this is, Medicare will not cover for annual physical exams, you can only bill Medicare for an acute or specific medical condition. So they actually discourage people from getting regular maintenance checkups which could have picked up that cancer early or risk factors for a heart attack early and instead pay 10 times as much to treat it after it happens.
Rather than complete universal health care, the government should simply make annual checkups free, giving people an incentive to see their doctor regularly rather than discouraging it. How many of us see their doctor every year? However that annual physical could save billions of dollars down the line.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='dopa345']That is exactly the crux of the matter. Universal health care, especially if run by the government is not a panacea. Everyone praises the Canadian health care system, overlooking the fact that people have to wait months in order to get studies and elective procedures done and there is such a wait that Canadians come to the U.S simply to get faster care. People also don't realize that the reason drugs are so cheap in Canada is that the U.S. essentially subsidizes their costs since Canada price controls their drugs so the pharmaceutical companies have to make up for the lost revenue from countries that actually have a free market system like the U.S.. The U.S. hands down has the finest quality of health care available. However we suck at the basic stuff like preventative medicine because we're focused more on tertiary care. Just to give you an idea of how whacked this is, Medicare will not cover for annual physical exams, you can only bill Medicare for an acute or specific medical condition. So they actually discourage people from getting regular maintenance checkups which could have picked up that cancer early or risk factors for a heart attack early and instead pay 10 times as much to treat it after it happens.
Rather than complete universal health care, the government should simply make annual checkups free, giving people an incentive to see their doctor regularly rather than discouraging it. How many of us see their doctor every year? However that annual physical could save billions of dollars down the line.[/QUOTE]
In NC, my wife's work insurance (hospital) actually paid out extra sick days if you went to the hospital-sponsored gym. I'm not talking about a little hotel gym, but a whole 35000sqft building with pools, a track, equipment, classes, etc. Here, nothing. If more insurance companies actually promoted good health with programs like these, they could cut their costs by a good 25%. What's more, insurance should be promoting free birth control, but we all know who's to blame on that one.
Rather than complete universal health care, the government should simply make annual checkups free, giving people an incentive to see their doctor regularly rather than discouraging it. How many of us see their doctor every year? However that annual physical could save billions of dollars down the line.[/QUOTE]
In NC, my wife's work insurance (hospital) actually paid out extra sick days if you went to the hospital-sponsored gym. I'm not talking about a little hotel gym, but a whole 35000sqft building with pools, a track, equipment, classes, etc. Here, nothing. If more insurance companies actually promoted good health with programs like these, they could cut their costs by a good 25%. What's more, insurance should be promoting free birth control, but we all know who's to blame on that one.
Cheese
CAGiversary!
I's sure we could come up with a variety of universal healthcare that would cost less then the insane premiums we're paying now, and provide guaranteed services for everyone, as well as allowing for supplemental insurance (which every other country offers) for elective surgeries (boob jobs). Would it be perfect? No, but it would certainly be better then what we've got now.
For me it comes down to a basic philosophical difference; private insurance companies are – at their heart –$for-profit companies that are beholden to their bottom line. A publicly run insurance program could shift the primary objective from profit to providing a service.
But as much as it makes sense, I doubt it will happen solely because the insurance industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry that will be able to buy it's way out of any political hole it may find itself in. It's sad, we're the one of the last countries on the planet with no form of public health care. If the rest of the world can find a happy medium, I'm sure we could too.
For me it comes down to a basic philosophical difference; private insurance companies are – at their heart –$for-profit companies that are beholden to their bottom line. A publicly run insurance program could shift the primary objective from profit to providing a service.
But as much as it makes sense, I doubt it will happen solely because the insurance industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry that will be able to buy it's way out of any political hole it may find itself in. It's sad, we're the one of the last countries on the planet with no form of public health care. If the rest of the world can find a happy medium, I'm sure we could too.
[quote name='CocheseUGA']A lot of people (including Moore) seem to forget the level of care that can be had if you do have insurance. [/QUOTE]
Did you even see the film? Moore did not leave that out but he does point out that a lot of people end up at war with their insurance companies.
A lot of the insurance companies profit comes from screwing policy holders.
BTW about who pays for universal healthcare?
The US spends 16% (probably soon to be 20%) of its GDP on healthcare that is with scores of millions uninsured.
The UK spends about 10%, Germany, France, and Switzerland about 11% with everyone taken care of.
Did you even see the film? Moore did not leave that out but he does point out that a lot of people end up at war with their insurance companies.
A lot of the insurance companies profit comes from screwing policy holders.
BTW about who pays for universal healthcare?
The US spends 16% (probably soon to be 20%) of its GDP on healthcare that is with scores of millions uninsured.
The UK spends about 10%, Germany, France, and Switzerland about 11% with everyone taken care of.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='dopa345']Rather than complete universal health care, the government should simply make annual checkups free, giving people an incentive to see their doctor regularly rather than discouraging it. How many of us see their doctor every year? However that annual physical could save billions of dollars down the line.[/QUOTE]
A lack of preventive care amongst the poorest of us leads to many, many problems (and, of course, the increased cost of later care). This is a sound starting point, IMO, and one that seems to increase the (public burden) of paying for health care, but would reduce cost via what it sets out to do: prevention (versus later care for well-developed ailments and diseases).
Of course, limited clinical checkups does not resolve problems of quality of treatment, cost of treatment, and bankruptcy issues that will result from those remaining who can't afford solid insurance (or those who have insurance, but are beleaguered by long-term problems insurance refuses to cover the overall cost of) or have no insurance. Free preventive care will reduce, for instance, cancer cases, but they will still remain in our nation, and they will still have no/few options for care.
Now, a final issue arises: does the government subsidize the cost of these free checkups by allowing patients to select their own physician, or do we subsidize the cost of "free clinics" for the poor? The latter exists to some extent, and the potential for quality of care differences is massive between those and private practices.
A lack of preventive care amongst the poorest of us leads to many, many problems (and, of course, the increased cost of later care). This is a sound starting point, IMO, and one that seems to increase the (public burden) of paying for health care, but would reduce cost via what it sets out to do: prevention (versus later care for well-developed ailments and diseases).
Of course, limited clinical checkups does not resolve problems of quality of treatment, cost of treatment, and bankruptcy issues that will result from those remaining who can't afford solid insurance (or those who have insurance, but are beleaguered by long-term problems insurance refuses to cover the overall cost of) or have no insurance. Free preventive care will reduce, for instance, cancer cases, but they will still remain in our nation, and they will still have no/few options for care.
Now, a final issue arises: does the government subsidize the cost of these free checkups by allowing patients to select their own physician, or do we subsidize the cost of "free clinics" for the poor? The latter exists to some extent, and the potential for quality of care differences is massive between those and private practices.
level1online
Banned
wake up america, the left ain't gonna save you either.
the Left/Right Matrix has you...
the Left/Right Matrix has you...
dragonreborn23
Banned
[quote name='Cheese']I's sure we could come up with a variety of universal healthcare that would cost less then the insane premiums we're paying now, and provide guaranteed services for everyone, as well as allowing for supplemental insurance (which every other country offers) for elective surgeries (boob jobs). Would it be perfect? No, but it would certainly be better then what we've got now.
For me it comes down to a basic philosophical difference; private insurance companies are – at their heart –$for-profit companies that are beholden to their bottom line. A publicly run insurance program could shift the primary objective from profit to providing a service.
But as much as it makes sense, I doubt it will happen solely because the insurance industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry that will be able to buy it's way out of any political hole it may find itself in. It's sad, we're the one of the last countries on the planet with no form of public health care. If the rest of the world can find a happy medium, I'm sure we could too.[/quote]
I completely agree. I really love this post because it's devoid of any political agenda. Thanks. I really wish that both sides of the arguement could come together and realize that making my doctor call an insurance agent to find out if I can have a life saving operation is just a bit ridiculous. Insurance is one of the biggest scams ever created. It controls my car, house, job, health, etc. and it's primary function is not to help me when I'm in trouble. It's main function is to make the insurance company as much money as possible. That doesn't seem like a very good situation for anyone but the insurance companies.
For me it comes down to a basic philosophical difference; private insurance companies are – at their heart –$for-profit companies that are beholden to their bottom line. A publicly run insurance program could shift the primary objective from profit to providing a service.
But as much as it makes sense, I doubt it will happen solely because the insurance industry is a multi-trillion dollar industry that will be able to buy it's way out of any political hole it may find itself in. It's sad, we're the one of the last countries on the planet with no form of public health care. If the rest of the world can find a happy medium, I'm sure we could too.[/quote]
I completely agree. I really love this post because it's devoid of any political agenda. Thanks. I really wish that both sides of the arguement could come together and realize that making my doctor call an insurance agent to find out if I can have a life saving operation is just a bit ridiculous. Insurance is one of the biggest scams ever created. It controls my car, house, job, health, etc. and it's primary function is not to help me when I'm in trouble. It's main function is to make the insurance company as much money as possible. That doesn't seem like a very good situation for anyone but the insurance companies.
Paco
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dragonreborn23']I completely agree. I really love this post because it's devoid of any political agenda. Thanks. I really wish that both sides of the arguement could come together and realize that making my doctor call an insurance agent to find out if I can have a life saving operation is just a bit ridiculous. Insurance is one of the biggest scams ever created. It controls my car, house, job, health, etc. and it's primary function is not to help me when I'm in trouble. It's main function is to make the insurance company as much money as possible. That doesn't seem like a very good situation for anyone but the insurance companies.[/quote]
I like that. It reminds me of the age old scam of marriage. Remember the wise words of Al Bundy. Marriage is like insurance. You pay and you pay and you pay, but you never get anything back.
But insurance is bullshit. Someone stole the metal part on our truck "The part where you hoist things up" The part cost 250 dollars, but if we went through insurance, they'd jack up our prices just to replace that. The increase in rates would be shitloads higher then the actual cost of replacement.
I like that. It reminds me of the age old scam of marriage. Remember the wise words of Al Bundy. Marriage is like insurance. You pay and you pay and you pay, but you never get anything back.
But insurance is bullshit. Someone stole the metal part on our truck "The part where you hoist things up" The part cost 250 dollars, but if we went through insurance, they'd jack up our prices just to replace that. The increase in rates would be shitloads higher then the actual cost of replacement.
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='level1online']wake up america, the left ain't gonna save you either.
the Left/Right Matrix has you...[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what is more absurd, your user title or your sig.
the Left/Right Matrix has you...[/QUOTE]
I'm not sure what is more absurd, your user title or your sig.
level1online
Banned
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I'm not sure what is more absurd, your user title or your sig.[/quote]
Next time just PM me if you got an issue with my sig or user title. Okay? Superman ain't gonna save you either...
Anyways, speaking of Michael Moore, how come he never addressed the NORAD stand down in his film Fahrenheit 9/11 ?
or the testimony of Norman Mineta to the 9/11 comission?
Next time just PM me if you got an issue with my sig or user title. Okay? Superman ain't gonna save you either...
Anyways, speaking of Michael Moore, how come he never addressed the NORAD stand down in his film Fahrenheit 9/11 ?
or the testimony of Norman Mineta to the 9/11 comission?
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='level1online']Next time just PM me if you got an issue with my sig or user title. Okay? Superman ain't gonna save you either...
Anyways, speaking of Michael Moore, how come he never addressed the NORAD stand down in his film Fahrenheit 9/11 ?
or the testimony of Norman Mineta to the 9/11 comission?
[/QUOTE]
It's public, so I can comment on it as I feel necessary. But feel free to keep drinking the Kool aid.
Anyways, speaking of Michael Moore, how come he never addressed the NORAD stand down in his film Fahrenheit 9/11 ?
or the testimony of Norman Mineta to the 9/11 comission?
It's public, so I can comment on it as I feel necessary. But feel free to keep drinking the Kool aid.
level1online
Banned
[quote name='CocheseUGA']It's public, so I can comment on it as I feel necessary. But feel free to keep drinking the Kool aid.[/quote]
Nope, I'm drinking heavily filtered H2O. Free of Chlorine, Pesticides, Mercury, etc.
Michael Moore did bring up a good point when he mentioned all the pharmaceutical ads that run on CNN.
Coincidence? or Conspiracy Theory??? ooooooohhhhhh....
Nope, I'm drinking heavily filtered H2O. Free of Chlorine, Pesticides, Mercury, etc.
Michael Moore did bring up a good point when he mentioned all the pharmaceutical ads that run on CNN.
Coincidence? or Conspiracy Theory??? ooooooohhhhhh....
CocheseUGA
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 33 (100%)
[quote name='level1online']Nope, I'm drinking heavily filtered H2O. Free of Chlorine, Pesticides, Mercury, etc.
Michael Moore did bring up a good point when he mentioned all the pharmaceutical ads that run on CNN.
Coincidence? or Conspiracy Theory??? ooooooohhhhhh....[/QUOTE]
I can't think of a single channel that doesn't have those ads. Noggin and PBS Kids do too. I fail to see, or concede a point.
Enjoy your water...but I wouldn't go swimming in a pool anytime soon.
Michael Moore did bring up a good point when he mentioned all the pharmaceutical ads that run on CNN.
Coincidence? or Conspiracy Theory??? ooooooohhhhhh....
[/QUOTE]I can't think of a single channel that doesn't have those ads. Noggin and PBS Kids do too. I fail to see, or concede a point.
Enjoy your water...but I wouldn't go swimming in a pool anytime soon.
level1online
Banned
[quote name='CocheseUGA']I can't think of a single channel that doesn't have those ads. Noggin and PBS Kids do too. I fail to see, or concede a point.
Enjoy your water...but I wouldn't go swimming in a pool anytime soon.[/quote]
yeah, i was joking, those ads also run every where else too.
it's been fun trading jabs w/ you. time to go outside.... ahhhhh!!!!
Enjoy your water...but I wouldn't go swimming in a pool anytime soon.[/quote]
yeah, i was joking, those ads also run every where else too.
it's been fun trading jabs w/ you. time to go outside.... ahhhhh!!!!
[quote name='dopa345']That is exactly the crux of the matter. Universal health care, especially if run by the government is not a panacea. Everyone praises the Canadian health care system, overlooking the fact that people have to wait months in order to get studies and elective procedures done and there is such a wait that Canadians come to the U.S simply to get faster care. People also don't realize that the reason drugs are so cheap in Canada is that the U.S. essentially subsidizes their costs since Canada price controls their drugs so the pharmaceutical companies have to make up for the lost revenue from countries that actually have a free market system like the U.S.. The U.S. hands down has the finest quality of health care available. However we suck at the basic stuff like preventative medicine because we're focused more on tertiary care. Just to give you an idea of how whacked this is, Medicare will not cover for annual physical exams, you can only bill Medicare for an acute or specific medical condition. So they actually discourage people from getting regular maintenance checkups which could have picked up that cancer early or risk factors for a heart attack early and instead pay 10 times as much to treat it after it happens.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Ive worked in healthcare in both the US and the UK (socialized medicine). Lets take the same situation and see how it would work in both contries.
You go to the ER with chest pain, and you get a workup with an ekg and cardiac enzymes. Ekg shows you are having an acute MI (heart attack).
US: You would be given anticoagulents, and sent to a facillity with a cath lab. YOu would have a angioplasty done, maybe stents inserted. If it is determined you need bypass surgery, you may go straight back to the OR, or would be scheduled for the next few days.
UK: You would be given anticoagulents. If you have private insurance, your treatment would be about the same as the us. If you just have NHS, your trip to the cath lab will take about 6-9 months. If after your angiogram it's determined you need bypass surgery, figure waiting up to another year and hope you dont have another MI in that time. But of course this is assuming you are under 75. If you are 75 or older, the NHS deems you too old for life saving surgery no mater how good your prognosis may be.
Do you want to trade the burecratic bullshit from the insurance companies to the government? Thats all we need is another disgustingly bloated government agency hemorhaging cash with no oversite or accountability. Maybe a saftey net universal insurance funded by a national sales tax of 1% with an additional 1% 'sin' tax on alchohol, tobacco, prepared foods (foods that are already taxable) and soft drinks.
[/QUOTE]
Exactly. Ive worked in healthcare in both the US and the UK (socialized medicine). Lets take the same situation and see how it would work in both contries.
You go to the ER with chest pain, and you get a workup with an ekg and cardiac enzymes. Ekg shows you are having an acute MI (heart attack).
US: You would be given anticoagulents, and sent to a facillity with a cath lab. YOu would have a angioplasty done, maybe stents inserted. If it is determined you need bypass surgery, you may go straight back to the OR, or would be scheduled for the next few days.
UK: You would be given anticoagulents. If you have private insurance, your treatment would be about the same as the us. If you just have NHS, your trip to the cath lab will take about 6-9 months. If after your angiogram it's determined you need bypass surgery, figure waiting up to another year and hope you dont have another MI in that time. But of course this is assuming you are under 75. If you are 75 or older, the NHS deems you too old for life saving surgery no mater how good your prognosis may be.
Do you want to trade the burecratic bullshit from the insurance companies to the government? Thats all we need is another disgustingly bloated government agency hemorhaging cash with no oversite or accountability. Maybe a saftey net universal insurance funded by a national sales tax of 1% with an additional 1% 'sin' tax on alchohol, tobacco, prepared foods (foods that are already taxable) and soft drinks.
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
If the bureacracy failed then people would vote against it. The hate speech against anything government related is more a sympton of swallowing libertarian pills than anything else.
Even with health care though, the system doesn't work. I had a friend (when I was in the 6th grade (around 9 years ago)) who found out that she had cancer. Her dad's insurance company refused to pay for the treatment (not sure why, memory is a bit fuzzy) and he was forced to pay for it out of his own pocket while he was fighting the insurance company in court. He eventually ran out of money paying for treatments, lost his job (for taking too many days off going to the hospital and fighting with the insurance company), and his daughter died.
Stuff in Sicko was exaggerated (no doubt), but insurance companies nation wide do give people the run around when they truly need the money to cover medical expenses. There are advantages to our system as well though. The best thing to do is to be as healthy as possible.
Stuff in Sicko was exaggerated (no doubt), but insurance companies nation wide do give people the run around when they truly need the money to cover medical expenses. There are advantages to our system as well though. The best thing to do is to be as healthy as possible.
RollingSkull
Banned
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']If the bureacracy failed then people would vote against it. The hate speech against anything government related is more a sympton of swallowing libertarian pills than anything else.[/quote]
Clearly, because folks who have been to the post office, the DMV, seen the tax paperwork they must file firsthand, seen what Congress does with money, seen firsthand the downright absurdly bureaucratic machinery of the DHS, they have no real reason to distrust government programs. Its all propaganda that they swallow.
Clearly, because folks who have been to the post office, the DMV, seen the tax paperwork they must file firsthand, seen what Congress does with money, seen firsthand the downright absurdly bureaucratic machinery of the DHS, they have no real reason to distrust government programs. Its all propaganda that they swallow.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']The hate speech against anything government related is more a sympton of swallowing libertarian pills than anything else.[/QUOTE]
How much did our government spend on Iraq, again?
Yeah, I'd hardly say we have a responsible government.
Either way, I'm for the health care reform. I'm just also for total reform of our government.
How much did our government spend on Iraq, again?
Yeah, I'd hardly say we have a responsible government.
Either way, I'm for the health care reform. I'm just also for total reform of our government.
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RollingSkull']Clearly, because folks who have been to the post office, the DMV, seen the tax paperwork they must file firsthand, seen what Congress does with money, seen firsthand the downright absurdly bureaucratic machinery of the DHS, they have no real reason to distrust government programs. Its all propaganda that they swallow.[/quote]
I didn't assume that all government was without guilt, however, I do believe that alot of the hate is exaggerated. For instance, the post office has its flaws, but it's typically a well run organization. The DMV, the horror stories that my parents taught me, simply don't happen any more in my experience. For what it is, it's typically not a big pain in the ass (though insurance companies are). Other government entities include fire fighters, who are mostly effective, and the police, who are mostly effective. Cynicism can only take you so far. Many aspects of government are flawed and slow moving, but it's a terrible lie to declare 100% of government is flawed and 100% of government is slow moving. Let me reiterate, again, my biggest problem has come with insurance companies.
Another government "mess" is the whole internets thing. A project created and funded by taxes of the American people.
I didn't assume that all government was without guilt, however, I do believe that alot of the hate is exaggerated. For instance, the post office has its flaws, but it's typically a well run organization. The DMV, the horror stories that my parents taught me, simply don't happen any more in my experience. For what it is, it's typically not a big pain in the ass (though insurance companies are). Other government entities include fire fighters, who are mostly effective, and the police, who are mostly effective. Cynicism can only take you so far. Many aspects of government are flawed and slow moving, but it's a terrible lie to declare 100% of government is flawed and 100% of government is slow moving. Let me reiterate, again, my biggest problem has come with insurance companies.
Another government "mess" is the whole internets thing. A project created and funded by taxes of the American people.
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='PyroGamer']How much did our government spend on Iraq, again?
Yeah, I'd hardly say we have a responsible government.
Either way, I'm for the health care reform. I'm just also for total reform of our government.[/quote]
Not flawless.
Yeah, I'd hardly say we have a responsible government.
Either way, I'm for the health care reform. I'm just also for total reform of our government.[/quote]
Not flawless.
RollingSkull
Banned
I've seen firsthand the callous way lives are ruined by the DHS, and have friends who live with that machinery on a daily basis.
Fire Departments and Police Departments, in addition to being held to performance metrics that are exacting and some of the few issues that can motivate the constituency, are handled by the local and state governments, measurably less unwieldy institutions than the federal government. Please try to remember that there is a difference; it is easy to forget thanks to our lousy civics education in government funded schools.
The internets were founded in military research. Nice try though. Bureaucratic as it may be at times, I trust the machinery of the military over government any day.
I disapprove of insurance companies as much as anyone. It is wrong to try to cheat folks out of coverage for which they have paid and are entitled. If they cannot afford to pay out and have to deny coverage for ludicrous reasons, they need to raise rates appropriately and deal straight with the consumers. However, I do not believe that, especially in a world where, time and time again, private industry is shown to be more efficient than government across the board, that the government would be better at giving health care, or even measurably less corrupt and/or incompetent in doing so.
Fire Departments and Police Departments, in addition to being held to performance metrics that are exacting and some of the few issues that can motivate the constituency, are handled by the local and state governments, measurably less unwieldy institutions than the federal government. Please try to remember that there is a difference; it is easy to forget thanks to our lousy civics education in government funded schools.
The internets were founded in military research. Nice try though. Bureaucratic as it may be at times, I trust the machinery of the military over government any day.
I disapprove of insurance companies as much as anyone. It is wrong to try to cheat folks out of coverage for which they have paid and are entitled. If they cannot afford to pay out and have to deny coverage for ludicrous reasons, they need to raise rates appropriately and deal straight with the consumers. However, I do not believe that, especially in a world where, time and time again, private industry is shown to be more efficient than government across the board, that the government would be better at giving health care, or even measurably less corrupt and/or incompetent in doing so.
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RollingSkull']I've seen firsthand the callous way lives are ruined by the DHS, and have friends who live with that machinery on a daily basis.
Fire Departments and Police Departments, in addition to being held to performance metrics that are exacting and some of the few issues that can motivate the constituency, are handled by the local and state governments, measurably less unwieldy institutions than the federal government. Please try to remember that there is a difference; it is easy to forget thanks to our lousy civics education in government funded schools.
The internets were founded in military research. Nice try though. Bureaucratic as it may be at times, I trust the machinery of the military over government any day.
I disapprove of insurance companies as much as anyone. It is wrong to try to cheat folks out of coverage for which they have paid and are entitled. If they cannot afford to pay out and have to deny coverage for ludicrous reasons, they need to raise rates appropriately and deal straight with the consumers. However, I do not believe that, especially in a world where, time and time again, private industry is shown to be more efficient than government across the board, that the government would be better at giving health care, or even measurably less corrupt and/or incompetent in doing so.[/quote]
A.) Lousy Civics education and all, I still know that the police and fire department are handled by government beuracracy. The government, as it were, handles these things. Performance metrics can be placed on any government institution, as well. State governments are not separated from THE government. They are both government.
B.) Military research is funded by the government. "Theft" from the people as it were. The Government controls the military, and the two are not inseparable or different. Trusting the military means you trust an aspect of the United States government. No different than A.
C.) I fully recognize of the ability of the private sector to deliver in certain areas. But it is by no means a godsend that is a perfect alternative to government. Base statements such as "All government is a paper work nightmare" and "All government is inefficient"and "Privatization is positive across the board" are flatly untrue propaganda from people with anarcho agendae. You're continuing with a line that includes a definite superiority of the private sector, and that's definitely not a fact based generalisation. Intense privatization usually increases GNP, but it also doesn't do anything for poverty or base happiness. The last metric of which we can agree is most important. The Chilean experiment, as it were, does nothing for the positivity of libertarianism. Most South American countries adopting radical privatization does nothing, either. Ironic that post war mixed markets of Germany and Japan were so healthy whereas Latin America is not yet on board with its private run institutions.
Fire Departments and Police Departments, in addition to being held to performance metrics that are exacting and some of the few issues that can motivate the constituency, are handled by the local and state governments, measurably less unwieldy institutions than the federal government. Please try to remember that there is a difference; it is easy to forget thanks to our lousy civics education in government funded schools.
The internets were founded in military research. Nice try though. Bureaucratic as it may be at times, I trust the machinery of the military over government any day.
I disapprove of insurance companies as much as anyone. It is wrong to try to cheat folks out of coverage for which they have paid and are entitled. If they cannot afford to pay out and have to deny coverage for ludicrous reasons, they need to raise rates appropriately and deal straight with the consumers. However, I do not believe that, especially in a world where, time and time again, private industry is shown to be more efficient than government across the board, that the government would be better at giving health care, or even measurably less corrupt and/or incompetent in doing so.[/quote]
A.) Lousy Civics education and all, I still know that the police and fire department are handled by government beuracracy. The government, as it were, handles these things. Performance metrics can be placed on any government institution, as well. State governments are not separated from THE government. They are both government.
B.) Military research is funded by the government. "Theft" from the people as it were. The Government controls the military, and the two are not inseparable or different. Trusting the military means you trust an aspect of the United States government. No different than A.
C.) I fully recognize of the ability of the private sector to deliver in certain areas. But it is by no means a godsend that is a perfect alternative to government. Base statements such as "All government is a paper work nightmare" and "All government is inefficient"and "Privatization is positive across the board" are flatly untrue propaganda from people with anarcho agendae. You're continuing with a line that includes a definite superiority of the private sector, and that's definitely not a fact based generalisation. Intense privatization usually increases GNP, but it also doesn't do anything for poverty or base happiness. The last metric of which we can agree is most important. The Chilean experiment, as it were, does nothing for the positivity of libertarianism. Most South American countries adopting radical privatization does nothing, either. Ironic that post war mixed markets of Germany and Japan were so healthy whereas Latin America is not yet on board with its private run institutions.
PyroGamer
Banned
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']A.) Lousy Civics education and all, I still know that the police and fire department are handled by government beuracracy. The government, as it were, handles these things. Performance metrics can be placed on any government institution, as well. State governments are not separated from THE government. They are both government.[/QUOTE]
Most libertarians agree local government trumps The Federal government any day, and they have very good reasons for it. You seem blissfully ignorant of them, and are turning this into some falsly dichotomous "GOVERNMENT BAD/GOVERNMENT PERFECT" debate, rather than calmly looking at what's best for the people.
While in an ideal government it seems matters dealing with people's health should be free, I'm sure we can all agree what really matters is what best serves the people, not what seems to fit into some perfect plan of how things ought to be done.
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']Most South American countries adopting radical privatization does nothing, either.[/QUOTE]
I'd hardly compare rejecting universal health-care due to the conclusion that it would be innefficient to "radical privatization."
I remain undecided on how to reform our health-care system, but it seems to me a certain amount of socialization is necessary, beyound the amount of socialization we have now.
I like Obama's health care plan.
Most libertarians agree local government trumps The Federal government any day, and they have very good reasons for it. You seem blissfully ignorant of them, and are turning this into some falsly dichotomous "GOVERNMENT BAD/GOVERNMENT PERFECT" debate, rather than calmly looking at what's best for the people.
While in an ideal government it seems matters dealing with people's health should be free, I'm sure we can all agree what really matters is what best serves the people, not what seems to fit into some perfect plan of how things ought to be done.
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']Most South American countries adopting radical privatization does nothing, either.[/QUOTE]
I'd hardly compare rejecting universal health-care due to the conclusion that it would be innefficient to "radical privatization."
I remain undecided on how to reform our health-care system, but it seems to me a certain amount of socialization is necessary, beyound the amount of socialization we have now.
I like Obama's health care plan.
RollingSkull
Banned
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']A.) Lousy Civics education and all, I still know that the police and fire department are handled by government beuracracy. The government, as it were, handles these things. Performance metrics can be placed on any government institution, as well. State governments are not separated from THE government. They are both government.
B.) Military research is funded by the government. "Theft" from the people as it were. The Government controls the military, and the two are not inseparable or different. Trusting the military means you trust an aspect of the United States government. No different than A.[/quote]
If you allow for no differences between the infrastructures of state and federal governments, or the feds and the military, then we have nothing more to say. You're defining the terms in ways that I do not believe are defensible. Yes, the military and the state governments are financed by taxes, but the innate deficiencies of the Federal government simply don't fit those institutions in the same definition. Financed by tax dollars is not sufficient for the corrupt/inefficient outlook conservatives have towards government, and you are dishonestly framing the debate by claiming that is the sole factor in that negative outlook.
I've seen a few happiness metric surveys, and wouldn't you know it, but they define happiness in ways that wildly favor socialist policies. Who'da thought?
Living on the government dole doesn't help poverty either.
B.) Military research is funded by the government. "Theft" from the people as it were. The Government controls the military, and the two are not inseparable or different. Trusting the military means you trust an aspect of the United States government. No different than A.[/quote]
If you allow for no differences between the infrastructures of state and federal governments, or the feds and the military, then we have nothing more to say. You're defining the terms in ways that I do not believe are defensible. Yes, the military and the state governments are financed by taxes, but the innate deficiencies of the Federal government simply don't fit those institutions in the same definition. Financed by tax dollars is not sufficient for the corrupt/inefficient outlook conservatives have towards government, and you are dishonestly framing the debate by claiming that is the sole factor in that negative outlook.
I've seen a few happiness metric surveys, and wouldn't you know it, but they define happiness in ways that wildly favor socialist policies. Who'da thought?
Living on the government dole doesn't help poverty either.
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RollingSkull']If you allow for no differences between the infrastructures of state and federal governments, or the feds and the military, then we have nothing more to say. You're defining the terms in ways that I do not believe are defensible. Yes, the military and the state governments are financed by taxes, but the innate deficiencies of the Federal government simply don't fit those institutions in the same definition. Financed by tax dollars is not sufficient for the corrupt/inefficient outlook conservatives have towards government, and you are dishonestly framing the debate by claiming that is the sole factor in that negative outlook.[/quote]
Once again, you are changing the argument to pin me as intolerable. First off, this is about privatization versus government. You suggested that privatization was a 100% superior device to government which was ineffective. After explaining several important government devices you explained that they weren't federal. Well, this isn't about federal versus state government, this is about government versus private corporations.
Secondly, it is a straight generalisation that all federal government is ineffective. There is no more truth to that than the "privatization makes princes out of all" stuff you were talking about earlier.
Third, the government DID fund the internets. The government also funds the military. The military and its chain of command are to protect the constitution, but their actions and abilities are determined by an elected body of central government. It's not a private organization that is in cahoots with the government, it is an arm of the government itself. It's *not* a corporation, it's directly controlled by the government. The government's money is what supports the military. It's a service that the the United States government provides. Hence, it is part of government. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Yep, no polls or studies are conducted without bias. That's the name of the game.
In high welfare states like Scandinavian countries there is a larger percentage of unemployed people than other parts of Europe. However, their economies are also stronger in almost every other metric. The idea that "coddling" a small percentage of people with welfare will destroy society is largely a misunderstanding of human nature. In contrast, by providing welfare, the small percentage of people, for whatever circumstance, don't want to participate in production, do not turn to crime so the other people who wish to produce are free to do so. People instill morals, morals spread across generations.
Once again, you are changing the argument to pin me as intolerable. First off, this is about privatization versus government. You suggested that privatization was a 100% superior device to government which was ineffective. After explaining several important government devices you explained that they weren't federal. Well, this isn't about federal versus state government, this is about government versus private corporations.
Secondly, it is a straight generalisation that all federal government is ineffective. There is no more truth to that than the "privatization makes princes out of all" stuff you were talking about earlier.
Third, the government DID fund the internets. The government also funds the military. The military and its chain of command are to protect the constitution, but their actions and abilities are determined by an elected body of central government. It's not a private organization that is in cahoots with the government, it is an arm of the government itself. It's *not* a corporation, it's directly controlled by the government. The government's money is what supports the military. It's a service that the the United States government provides. Hence, it is part of government. Not a hard concept to grasp.
Yep, no polls or studies are conducted without bias. That's the name of the game.
In high welfare states like Scandinavian countries there is a larger percentage of unemployed people than other parts of Europe. However, their economies are also stronger in almost every other metric. The idea that "coddling" a small percentage of people with welfare will destroy society is largely a misunderstanding of human nature. In contrast, by providing welfare, the small percentage of people, for whatever circumstance, don't want to participate in production, do not turn to crime so the other people who wish to produce are free to do so. People instill morals, morals spread across generations.
RollingSkull
Banned
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']Once again, you are changing the argument to pin me as intolerable. First off, this is about privatization versus government. You suggested that privatization was a 100% superior device to government which was ineffective. After explaining several important government devices you explained that they weren't federal. Well, this isn't about federal versus state government, this is about government versus private corporations.[/quote]
You're mischaracterizing the exchange. You claimed that "hate speech against government" was coming from folks blindly following rhetoric. I disagreed and said there was plenty of good faith reason to dislike the government, because there is more nuance to the position than you're letting on. I'm not changing jack shit about the argument. You're pulling up straw men libertarians and I'm calling you on it.
Plus, even the firemen and the police have a good deal of inefficiencies about them; the LA police have been with substandard, often not working, radios for years.
A generalization, yes, but there is plenty to back up a statement that, on average, the free market is better at handling money than the government.
And what you fail to grasp is that a sizeable reason to want to avoid expanding federal government programs is due to the innate corruption, bureaucracy, and mission creep inherent in the workings of the Federal Government since the dawn of the nation. The military receives funding from the government, and answers to the government, but the Federal bureaucrats don't dictate military policy. The military has its own bureaucracy for such things. That specific bureaucracy has a great many problems of its own, but it has shown itself to be capable.
The internet came out of military research for the military's purposes. It is hardly a triumph of socialist ingenuity.
Even still, that doesn't prove anything. If you give lots of money to one group, they will occasionally produce interesting research. Just like if you have an absolute monarchy: Sometimes you will get good results.
The morals that, yes, you don't have to work if you don't want to. Those that do will pay your way!
You're mischaracterizing the exchange. You claimed that "hate speech against government" was coming from folks blindly following rhetoric. I disagreed and said there was plenty of good faith reason to dislike the government, because there is more nuance to the position than you're letting on. I'm not changing jack shit about the argument. You're pulling up straw men libertarians and I'm calling you on it.
Plus, even the firemen and the police have a good deal of inefficiencies about them; the LA police have been with substandard, often not working, radios for years.
A generalization, yes, but there is plenty to back up a statement that, on average, the free market is better at handling money than the government.
And what you fail to grasp is that a sizeable reason to want to avoid expanding federal government programs is due to the innate corruption, bureaucracy, and mission creep inherent in the workings of the Federal Government since the dawn of the nation. The military receives funding from the government, and answers to the government, but the Federal bureaucrats don't dictate military policy. The military has its own bureaucracy for such things. That specific bureaucracy has a great many problems of its own, but it has shown itself to be capable.
The internet came out of military research for the military's purposes. It is hardly a triumph of socialist ingenuity.
Even still, that doesn't prove anything. If you give lots of money to one group, they will occasionally produce interesting research. Just like if you have an absolute monarchy: Sometimes you will get good results.
The morals that, yes, you don't have to work if you don't want to. Those that do will pay your way!
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
[quote name='RollingSkull']You're mischaracterizing the exchange. You claimed that "hate speech against government" was coming from folks blindly following rhetoric. I disagreed and said there was plenty of good faith reason to dislike the government, because there is more nuance to the position than you're letting on. I'm not changing jack shit about the argument. You're pulling up straw men libertarians and I'm calling you on it.[/quote]
You became interested in state governments when I said your characterization of all government as corrupt and ineffective was a blanket statement stooped more in autocratic dictation of opinion opposed to any real search for the truth. State government is government, period.
Also, there's as much, if not more, reason to be weary of corporations than the government. The government, at least in some capacity, represents the people. The corporation represents the corporation. Hence the whole issue with healthcare.
Plus, even the firemen and the police have a good deal of inefficiencies about them; the LA police have been with substandard, often not working, radios for years.
Never said or implied it was perfect. Just that a rather efficient system with checks and balances was in place.
A generalization, yes, but there is plenty to back up a statement that, on average, the free market is better at handling money than the government.
And there's plenty to back up the fact that most immediate privatization is only short gained, and that innovation is only created on minute levels of progress. You're interested in spouting your idealogy as fact instead of weighing alternate opinions. If I thought that the private sector was healthier for people then I'd need only look at the intense privatization of South America as a guideline for how NOT to operate. Given that despite healthy GNP, most countries ellicit very poor equity and happiness, not to mention callous military abuse by "property owners" such as druglords and dictators, I wouldn't say it's something to be hopped up about.
And what you fail to grasp is that a sizeable reason to want to avoid expanding federal government programs is due to the innate corruption, bureaucracy, and mission creep inherent in the workings of the Federal Government since the dawn of the nation.
And there isn't a similar criticism of big time corporation and capitalism? At the turn of the century socialism was high not because people wanted to be lazy, but because a minute percentage of people took advantage of others to gain excessive monetary holds.
Government can be inefficient, aspects of it are corrupt. Privatization is not mostly the answer, or 51% of the answer. It's the answer when it fits.
The military receives funding from the government, and answers to the government, but the Federal bureaucrats don't dictate military policy. The military has its own bureaucracy for such things. That specific bureaucracy has a great many problems of its own, but it has shown itself to be capable.
Actually, the highest elected official in the country can dictate policy to the Military. The military can in no way override the elected body's choice for president unless they believe it violates the constitution. The senate can declare war, cut funding, and utilize the military for humanitarian aid. The internal generalship and chain of command can be organized in any way the elected president sees fit. The military does not dictate its own policy, it acts upon the wishes of elected constituents. Its existence hinges on support from the people who elect people to dictate policy.
And, like we've already discussed, the government has shown itself capable as well in many areas.
The internet came out of military research for the military's purposes. It is hardly a triumph of socialist ingenuity.
I'm still having a hard time understanding why a branch of the government creating the internets means something other than the government created the internets. The military is part of the US government. US Government > Military > Internets.
Even still, that doesn't prove anything. If you give lots of money to one group, they will occasionally produce interesting research. Just like if you have an absolute monarchy: Sometimes you will get good results.
Same metric applies to privatization. Same applies to everything. Unlike a monarchy, however, and unlike how businesses and properties could be run in a full libertarian regime, there is democracy and a mandate for equality opposed to absolute monarchy. Don't compare arguably the most important force in the world today with some stroke of luck by ineffective socialism.
The morals that, yes, you don't have to work if you don't want to. Those that do will pay your way!
So it's a guarantee that welfare is 100% lazyness guaranteed futures? I thought this wasn't about libertarians dictating one sided economic and political thought and more about open discussions. Guess I was wrong.
You became interested in state governments when I said your characterization of all government as corrupt and ineffective was a blanket statement stooped more in autocratic dictation of opinion opposed to any real search for the truth. State government is government, period.
Also, there's as much, if not more, reason to be weary of corporations than the government. The government, at least in some capacity, represents the people. The corporation represents the corporation. Hence the whole issue with healthcare.
Plus, even the firemen and the police have a good deal of inefficiencies about them; the LA police have been with substandard, often not working, radios for years.
Never said or implied it was perfect. Just that a rather efficient system with checks and balances was in place.
A generalization, yes, but there is plenty to back up a statement that, on average, the free market is better at handling money than the government.
And there's plenty to back up the fact that most immediate privatization is only short gained, and that innovation is only created on minute levels of progress. You're interested in spouting your idealogy as fact instead of weighing alternate opinions. If I thought that the private sector was healthier for people then I'd need only look at the intense privatization of South America as a guideline for how NOT to operate. Given that despite healthy GNP, most countries ellicit very poor equity and happiness, not to mention callous military abuse by "property owners" such as druglords and dictators, I wouldn't say it's something to be hopped up about.
And what you fail to grasp is that a sizeable reason to want to avoid expanding federal government programs is due to the innate corruption, bureaucracy, and mission creep inherent in the workings of the Federal Government since the dawn of the nation.
And there isn't a similar criticism of big time corporation and capitalism? At the turn of the century socialism was high not because people wanted to be lazy, but because a minute percentage of people took advantage of others to gain excessive monetary holds.
Government can be inefficient, aspects of it are corrupt. Privatization is not mostly the answer, or 51% of the answer. It's the answer when it fits.
The military receives funding from the government, and answers to the government, but the Federal bureaucrats don't dictate military policy. The military has its own bureaucracy for such things. That specific bureaucracy has a great many problems of its own, but it has shown itself to be capable.
Actually, the highest elected official in the country can dictate policy to the Military. The military can in no way override the elected body's choice for president unless they believe it violates the constitution. The senate can declare war, cut funding, and utilize the military for humanitarian aid. The internal generalship and chain of command can be organized in any way the elected president sees fit. The military does not dictate its own policy, it acts upon the wishes of elected constituents. Its existence hinges on support from the people who elect people to dictate policy.
And, like we've already discussed, the government has shown itself capable as well in many areas.
The internet came out of military research for the military's purposes. It is hardly a triumph of socialist ingenuity.
I'm still having a hard time understanding why a branch of the government creating the internets means something other than the government created the internets. The military is part of the US government. US Government > Military > Internets.
Even still, that doesn't prove anything. If you give lots of money to one group, they will occasionally produce interesting research. Just like if you have an absolute monarchy: Sometimes you will get good results.
Same metric applies to privatization. Same applies to everything. Unlike a monarchy, however, and unlike how businesses and properties could be run in a full libertarian regime, there is democracy and a mandate for equality opposed to absolute monarchy. Don't compare arguably the most important force in the world today with some stroke of luck by ineffective socialism.
The morals that, yes, you don't have to work if you don't want to. Those that do will pay your way!
So it's a guarantee that welfare is 100% lazyness guaranteed futures? I thought this wasn't about libertarians dictating one sided economic and political thought and more about open discussions. Guess I was wrong.
RollingSkull
Banned
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']You became interested in state governments when I said your characterization of all government as corrupt and ineffective was a blanket statement stooped more in autocratic dictation of opinion opposed to any real search for the truth.[/quote]
I. NEVER. SAID. THAT.
We've been over this. You can keep asserting that there is no nuance to my position, and I'll keep saying that there is.
I think you need only look at Hurricane Katrina to see the difference between the roles of state and federal governments, especially what happens when one expects the latter to make up for the shortcomings of the former.
The government has a funny way of representing the people in the massive DHS/family law bureaucracy they have set up. Hell, I'd bet half the people on this board would disagree that the government represents anyone but bureaucrats and special interests.
The corporation represents the corporation whose job it is to provide the service of health care at a cost that is as low as possible while ensuring quality enough service to attract customers, in an effort to increase revenue for the stockholders. Part of that includes remaining competitive. Nobody would go to a hospital with wait periods similar to those in Canada and Britain if given a choice.
The flaw in this system is when companies don't deal straight with their clientele, and attempt to cheat them out of service that their customers are owed. Believing that the government won't have similar problems is quixotic at best.
You continue to misread me as some sort of Libertarian. I'm not. Libertarians are freaks.
My readings have a very different opinion; that socialism was popular among the intellectual elite and the intellectually vapid for the attractive prospects of taking money from those "that don't deserve it" and giving it to those enlightened that do.
I feel like I am bashing my head against a brick wall. Yes. The military answers to the government. That does not mean that they internally function just like a government!
Research they produced lead to the internets. Last I checked, I'm not paying Uncle Sam for use of the internets. Had the government REALLY produced them, we'd be paying for access to the internets with tax dollars, and content would be dominated by US laws! If the internets were REALLY controlled by the Federal Government, you and everyone else on this forum would be bitching your ass off about how much the government doesn't let you do on it.
Excuse me? This coming from the man that says socialist policies create better "happiness" (Defined in metrics that favor socialism) and everything else BUT short-term GNP in countries that practice it. A man who blindly spouts the Central American privatization efforts while ignoring the fact that socialism itself has a body count a few miles long?
I. NEVER. SAID. THAT.
We've been over this. You can keep asserting that there is no nuance to my position, and I'll keep saying that there is.
I think you need only look at Hurricane Katrina to see the difference between the roles of state and federal governments, especially what happens when one expects the latter to make up for the shortcomings of the former.
The government has a funny way of representing the people in the massive DHS/family law bureaucracy they have set up. Hell, I'd bet half the people on this board would disagree that the government represents anyone but bureaucrats and special interests.
The corporation represents the corporation whose job it is to provide the service of health care at a cost that is as low as possible while ensuring quality enough service to attract customers, in an effort to increase revenue for the stockholders. Part of that includes remaining competitive. Nobody would go to a hospital with wait periods similar to those in Canada and Britain if given a choice.
The flaw in this system is when companies don't deal straight with their clientele, and attempt to cheat them out of service that their customers are owed. Believing that the government won't have similar problems is quixotic at best.
You continue to misread me as some sort of Libertarian. I'm not. Libertarians are freaks.
My readings have a very different opinion; that socialism was popular among the intellectual elite and the intellectually vapid for the attractive prospects of taking money from those "that don't deserve it" and giving it to those enlightened that do.
I feel like I am bashing my head against a brick wall. Yes. The military answers to the government. That does not mean that they internally function just like a government!
Research they produced lead to the internets. Last I checked, I'm not paying Uncle Sam for use of the internets. Had the government REALLY produced them, we'd be paying for access to the internets with tax dollars, and content would be dominated by US laws! If the internets were REALLY controlled by the Federal Government, you and everyone else on this forum would be bitching your ass off about how much the government doesn't let you do on it.
Excuse me? This coming from the man that says socialist policies create better "happiness" (Defined in metrics that favor socialism) and everything else BUT short-term GNP in countries that practice it. A man who blindly spouts the Central American privatization efforts while ignoring the fact that socialism itself has a body count a few miles long?
ObiWanShinobi
CAGiversary!
The fact that one can't copy and paste in these threads is mother
ing ridiculous.
We've been over this. You can keep asserting that there is no nuance to my position, and I'll keep saying that there is.
I think you need only look at Hurricane Katrina to see the difference between the roles of state and federal governments, especially what happens when one expects the latter to make up for the shortcomings of the former.
This is about privatization versus government. That's it.
The government has a funny way of representing the people in the massive DHS/family law bureaucracy they have set up. Hell, I'd bet half the people on this board would disagree that the government represents anyone but bureaucrats and special interests.
Yep, there's cynicism towards the government. How many people felt that way after September 11th?
The corporation represents the corporation whose job it is to provide the service of health care at a cost that is as low as possible while ensuring quality enough service to attract customers, in an effort to increase revenue for the stockholders. Part of that includes remaining competitive. Nobody would go to a hospital with wait periods similar to those in Canada and Britain if given a choice.
The corporation does not have a responsibility to people, just the corporation. When this includes providing good service, then it's there. When this includes screwing over the customers, then it's there. If people get weighted down by contracts and payments, there's not alot of room for change. There have been plenty of victims of corporations and insurance based healthcare for a while. Don't pretend that ma and pa wouldn't prefer better coverage for everyone and guaranteed coverage over maybe/maybe not superior health care.
And plenty of people who can't afford health insurance would love a British/Canadian hospital. Plenty of people who insurance didn't cover would love socialized medicine in Europe.
The flaw in this system is when companies don't deal straight with their clientele, and attempt to cheat them out of service that their customers are owed. Believing that the government won't have similar problems is quixotic at best.
Believing that a corporation could do it better 100% of the time is pretty ridiculous in itself.
You continue to misread me as some sort of Libertarian. I'm not. Libertarians are freaks.
Praise heaven for that.
My readings have a very different opinion; that socialism was popular among the intellectual elite and the intellectually vapid for the attractive prospects of taking money from those "that don't deserve it" and giving it to those enlightened that do.
Hardly, capitalism was raping America in the 1900's. And Theodore Roosevelt, a republican, instilled numerous government programs and monitoring devices to help out the disadvantaged electorate. He also began the national park system to help stop the raping of lands. Intellectual elite or not, there were problems with laissez-faire capitalism at the turn of the century.
I feel like I am bashing my head against a brick wall. Yes. The military answers to the government. That does not mean that they internally function just like a government!
You're trying to make a difference between a government run organization and the government.
Research they produced lead to the internets. Last I checked, I'm not paying Uncle Sam for use of the internets. Had the government REALLY produced them, we'd be paying for access to the internets with tax dollars, and content would be dominated by US laws! If the internets were REALLY controlled by the Federal Government, you and everyone else on this forum would be bitching your ass off about how much the government doesn't let you do on it.
First off, the goverment is heavily involved in the promotion, distribution, and health of the internets. While they only funded 40% of the internets since the 80's, they were still the biggest reason for its existence. Another point is that America COULD censor the internets if they wanted too. I'm also positive that the CIA and FBI monitor the internets and record whatever information they want without repercussion. Remember, it's our governments free speech mandate that allows us to view dissenting opinions and lewd material. China infringes on what its people can see, so it's directly correlated to the government. So no, the internet being partially funded by private organizations does not guarantee freedom of expression. It means that we have a goverment allowing us freedom.
Excuse me? This coming from the man that says socialist policies create better "happiness" (Defined in metrics that favor socialism) and everything else BUT short-term GNP in countries that practice it. A man who blindly spouts the Central American privatization efforts while ignoring the fact that socialism itself has a body count a few miles long?
Which political idealogy/economic device does not have a body count? Pinochet ring any bells?
I do not blindly spout South American economic data, either. I plan to have a fellowship in an economic studies institute and focus on the progression of Privatization in South America.
ing ridiculous. We've been over this. You can keep asserting that there is no nuance to my position, and I'll keep saying that there is.
I think you need only look at Hurricane Katrina to see the difference between the roles of state and federal governments, especially what happens when one expects the latter to make up for the shortcomings of the former.
This is about privatization versus government. That's it.
The government has a funny way of representing the people in the massive DHS/family law bureaucracy they have set up. Hell, I'd bet half the people on this board would disagree that the government represents anyone but bureaucrats and special interests.
Yep, there's cynicism towards the government. How many people felt that way after September 11th?
The corporation represents the corporation whose job it is to provide the service of health care at a cost that is as low as possible while ensuring quality enough service to attract customers, in an effort to increase revenue for the stockholders. Part of that includes remaining competitive. Nobody would go to a hospital with wait periods similar to those in Canada and Britain if given a choice.
The corporation does not have a responsibility to people, just the corporation. When this includes providing good service, then it's there. When this includes screwing over the customers, then it's there. If people get weighted down by contracts and payments, there's not alot of room for change. There have been plenty of victims of corporations and insurance based healthcare for a while. Don't pretend that ma and pa wouldn't prefer better coverage for everyone and guaranteed coverage over maybe/maybe not superior health care.
And plenty of people who can't afford health insurance would love a British/Canadian hospital. Plenty of people who insurance didn't cover would love socialized medicine in Europe.
The flaw in this system is when companies don't deal straight with their clientele, and attempt to cheat them out of service that their customers are owed. Believing that the government won't have similar problems is quixotic at best.
Believing that a corporation could do it better 100% of the time is pretty ridiculous in itself.
You continue to misread me as some sort of Libertarian. I'm not. Libertarians are freaks.
Praise heaven for that.
My readings have a very different opinion; that socialism was popular among the intellectual elite and the intellectually vapid for the attractive prospects of taking money from those "that don't deserve it" and giving it to those enlightened that do.
Hardly, capitalism was raping America in the 1900's. And Theodore Roosevelt, a republican, instilled numerous government programs and monitoring devices to help out the disadvantaged electorate. He also began the national park system to help stop the raping of lands. Intellectual elite or not, there were problems with laissez-faire capitalism at the turn of the century.
I feel like I am bashing my head against a brick wall. Yes. The military answers to the government. That does not mean that they internally function just like a government!
You're trying to make a difference between a government run organization and the government.
Research they produced lead to the internets. Last I checked, I'm not paying Uncle Sam for use of the internets. Had the government REALLY produced them, we'd be paying for access to the internets with tax dollars, and content would be dominated by US laws! If the internets were REALLY controlled by the Federal Government, you and everyone else on this forum would be bitching your ass off about how much the government doesn't let you do on it.
First off, the goverment is heavily involved in the promotion, distribution, and health of the internets. While they only funded 40% of the internets since the 80's, they were still the biggest reason for its existence. Another point is that America COULD censor the internets if they wanted too. I'm also positive that the CIA and FBI monitor the internets and record whatever information they want without repercussion. Remember, it's our governments free speech mandate that allows us to view dissenting opinions and lewd material. China infringes on what its people can see, so it's directly correlated to the government. So no, the internet being partially funded by private organizations does not guarantee freedom of expression. It means that we have a goverment allowing us freedom.
Excuse me? This coming from the man that says socialist policies create better "happiness" (Defined in metrics that favor socialism) and everything else BUT short-term GNP in countries that practice it. A man who blindly spouts the Central American privatization efforts while ignoring the fact that socialism itself has a body count a few miles long?
Which political idealogy/economic device does not have a body count? Pinochet ring any bells?
I do not blindly spout South American economic data, either. I plan to have a fellowship in an economic studies institute and focus on the progression of Privatization in South America.
RollingSkull
Banned
[quote name='ObiWanShinobi']The fact that one can't copy and paste in these threads is mothering ridiculous.[/quote]
I can do it just fine...
I don't think you should get to define what is kosher for discussion or not, especially when the real situation has more nuance than that.
Yes, but if a corporation has a reputation for screwing over its clientele, it will start to hemorrhage clientele. Corporations' gain revenue from selling services to customers. If they can get away with dealing dirty, they will, but if it becomes known that they deal dirty, folks will stop dealing with them and deliver money to a competitor.
Whereas, with government, we know it deals dirty, just watch the Congressmen earmark our tax dollars away. The choice to change governments is limited, however.
Translation: Plenty of people who do not have XX would want YY, which is XX provided for free!
When it comes to money-consciousness and efficiency, such a belief is not so ridiculous.
Capitalism? Are you telling me Capitalism started the Great Depression?
An organization that answers to the government. It is staffed and run by military personell, with its own bureaucracy that, despite a few shortcomings, is quite effective in dealing with the fields of its expertise. The military is subject to its own judicial codes for its members and, while major directives come from the government, its own policies are its own.
Only through government control of ISPs, the way China does, could you censor the internet in such a manner. That is not possible here for obvious reasons. If the government could do such monitoring, it would, because then they would not have to waste resources tracking down child porn mongers detective-style.
The free speech mandate of the government only applies to the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." anyway... there are ways around it. Consider hate crimes laws.
Socialism's body count is higher!
ing ridiculous.[/quote]I can do it just fine...
I don't think you should get to define what is kosher for discussion or not, especially when the real situation has more nuance than that.
Yes, but if a corporation has a reputation for screwing over its clientele, it will start to hemorrhage clientele. Corporations' gain revenue from selling services to customers. If they can get away with dealing dirty, they will, but if it becomes known that they deal dirty, folks will stop dealing with them and deliver money to a competitor.
Whereas, with government, we know it deals dirty, just watch the Congressmen earmark our tax dollars away. The choice to change governments is limited, however.
Translation: Plenty of people who do not have XX would want YY, which is XX provided for free!
When it comes to money-consciousness and efficiency, such a belief is not so ridiculous.
Capitalism? Are you telling me Capitalism started the Great Depression?
An organization that answers to the government. It is staffed and run by military personell, with its own bureaucracy that, despite a few shortcomings, is quite effective in dealing with the fields of its expertise. The military is subject to its own judicial codes for its members and, while major directives come from the government, its own policies are its own.
Only through government control of ISPs, the way China does, could you censor the internet in such a manner. That is not possible here for obvious reasons. If the government could do such monitoring, it would, because then they would not have to waste resources tracking down child porn mongers detective-style.
The free speech mandate of the government only applies to the phrase "Congress shall make no law..." anyway... there are ways around it. Consider hate crimes laws.
Socialism's body count is higher!
bread's done