Universal Healthcare= Slavery (Libertarians Are Trolling Us)

[thegreekdog]

And you'll argue that we waste a lot, but won't see that in a study BBS posted in some other thread (the CLEAR one by MIT, I have to find it somewhere) that we are not the most corrupt or wasteful government with a fully public system. Yet their systems are still more efficient than ours. Why is that?

Because their legislatures aren't as corrupt or inefficient as ours? I don't know.

[Mr_Adams]

Greece is going bankrupt.

Why?

In short, Keynesianism.

The long answer, excessive government spending has become unsustainable, and their debt is mounted so high that something was doomed to give. it just happened to be the countries creditability. The Greek government is irresponsible with it's expenditures, and, unlike the US, can scare people into maintaining it's credit lines.

[Mr_Adams]

But you have some explanation about how the EVIL free market ruined everything for everybody, and how it's all trade of value-for value instead of giving things unearned which is at fault, and somehow the Russian socialist failure doesn't mean anything, because Europe is gonna do it better.

[natty dread]

My country has universal healthcare.

For some reason, we have yet to face doom & destruction because of it.

[GreecePwns]

But you have some explanation about how the EVIL free market ruined everything for everybody, and how it's all trade of value-for value instead of giving things unearned which is at fault, and somehow the Russian socialist failure doesn't mean anything, because Europe is gonna do it better.

Ravings of a madman out of the McCarthy era.

Where did I say the free market ruined everything? I said a free market healthcare system is economically inefficient when compared to the universal public healthcare systems in the world.

And Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship under a madman such as you masquerading as communism. Europe is doing it better when it comes to healthcare. Good try though.

You, DangerBoy, bradleybadly and Jay form the Fantastic Four of stupidity.

[Mr_Adams]

Nokia. Finnish government is much less intrusive than Greece's. The capitalistic part of your economy is large enough to overcome the socialistic parts.

[Mr_Adams]

Where did I say the free market ruined everything? I said a free market healthcare system is economically inefficient when compared to the universal public healthcare systems in the world.

Name one thing the US government involvement has made more efficient in the USofA. It WON'T work.

And Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship under a madman such as you masquerading as communism. Europe is doing it better when it comes to healthcare. Good try though.

Ok, how about communist Britain? The socialist party that rose up for a period in Britain almost destroyed the country economically. By historical precedent, socialism doesn't work, yet, you think taking bits and pieces of socialism and forcing them into a free market WILL work? There is no motivation to do well in a government run industry, like Universal Health care is a step towards. When's the last time you stepped foot inside a public school? They are a disaster. All public employees.

[GreecePwns]

Where did I say the free market ruined everything? I said a free market healthcare system is economically inefficient when compared to the universal public healthcare systems in the world.

Name one thing the US government involvement has made more efficient in the USofA. It WON'T work.

And Russia was a totalitarian dictatorship under a madman such as you masquerading as communism. Europe is doing it better when it comes to healthcare. Good try though.

Ok, how about communist Britain? The socialist party that rose up for a period in Britain almost destroyed the country economically. By historical precedent, socialism doesn't work, yet, you think taking bits and pieces of socialism and forcing them into a free market WILL work? There is no motivation to do well in a government run industry, like Universal Health care is a step towards. When's the last time you stepped foot inside a public school? They are a disaster. All public employees.

Communist Britain?

A public school isn't healthcare isn't a manufactured good.
Socialism isn't communism.
Universal healthcare isn't socialsm as a whole.
Nations that have universal healthcare aren't socialist as a whole.

Your generalizations do not apply and do not account for the fact that the public systems of today spend less as a percent of GDP and cover everyone. Instead you throw out random terms and call it "hyperbole."

Why did Britain suffer economically? Please do tell.

[thegreekdog]

Your generalizations do not apply and do not account for the fact that the public systems of today spend less as a percent of GDP and cover everyone. Instead you throw out random terms and call it "hyperbole."

And you apparently assume that the only answer for healthcare in the United States is socialized medicine.

[comic boy]

Nokia. Finnish government is much less intrusive than Greece's. The capitalistic part of your economy is large enough to overcome the socialistic parts.

Which is true of most of Europe and would still be true of the USA even if your healthcare reform was twice as radical , your arguments are the same 'reds under the beds ' tosh that was discredited in the fifties.

[Mr_Adams]

Communist Britain?

A public school isn't healthcare isn't a manufactured good.
Socialism isn't communism.
Universal healthcare isn't socialsm as a whole.
Nations that have universal healthcare aren't socialist as a whole.

1) Healthcare isn't a manufactured good, it is a service. either way, government involvement won't help.
2)Karl Marx worte: "We have seen... that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, to establish democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all of instruments of production in the hands of the state."
In short, socialism now, communism later.
3)As I said, Universal Healthcare is more unnecessary government involvement, and one more step towards socialism.
4)Not in whole; not yet

[thegreekdog]

Nokia. Finnish government is much less intrusive than Greece's. The capitalistic part of your economy is large enough to overcome the socialistic parts.

Which is true of most of Europe and would still be true of the USA even if your healthcare reform was twice as radical , your arguments are the same 'reds under the beds ' tosh that was discredited in the fifties.

It's not a question of "oh noes, herez the commies!" That's a strawman argument, which might be relevant in that a lot of conservative pundits use some form of that phrase to describe socialized healthcare.

The discussion, from the "we don't want government provided universal healthcare" side of the aisle, is whether we can do it better the other way. The answer might be yes and some of us would like to try that before handing healthcare over to a federal government that is close to bankrupt, corrupt, and inefficient (and doesn't like letting stuff go once it has its hands on it).

[GreecePwns]

Your generalizations do not apply and do not account for the fact that the public systems of today spend less as a percent of GDP and cover everyone. Instead you throw out random terms and call it "hyperbole."

And you apparently assume that the only answer for healthcare in the United States is socialized medicine.

I'm arguing for universal public health insurance, not socialized medical care. The government isn't employing the doctors under the French system, and in fact, they make significantly less there than they do here. The government pays for their graduate school.

There is still no explaining away the fact that nations with universal public health insurance spend less than we do on health insurance as a percent of GDP and are, therefore, operating in a much more efficient system.

[GreecePwns]

1) Healthcare isn't a manufactured good, it is a service. either way, government involvement won't help.

Why has it in other nations then? You still haven't explained.

2)Karl Marx worte: "We have seen... that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, to establish democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all of instruments of production in the hands of the state."
In short, socialism now, communism later.

You forgot the whole revolution part. Or is universal healthcare going to lead to a revolution?

3)As I said, Universal Healthcare is more unnecessary government involvement, and one more step towards socialism.

The boogeyman.

[thegreekdog]

The boogeyman.

No... it's not the boogeyman. You want to call it the boogeyman because you hope that the federal government will be able to provide universal health insurance with limited resources and with limited inefficiency. I challenge you to find some programs that the federal government runs in an efficient and worthwhile manner. Let's take the four biggest - public education, Medicare, social security, and the military. Of these four, are any run efficiently? Could any of them be run better by private institutions? How about the postal service? How about the Environmental Protection Agency or the FDA? Are these well-run organizations?

Those of us who think they are not well-run organizations are the same people who don't think the federal government is the best option to run our health insurance (or healthcare system).

[PLAYER57832]

And you'll argue that we waste a lot, but won't see that in a study BBS posted in some other thread (the CLEAR one by MIT, I have to find it somewhere) that we are not the most corrupt or wasteful government with a fully public system. Yet their systems are still more efficient than ours. Why is that?

Because their legislatures aren't as corrupt or inefficient as ours? I don't know.

No, because our system is built on making money for insurance companies. Not doctors, not providing truly better care, though up until recently those goals worked hand-in-hand with insurance. Now, when costs have skyrocketed, employment is down, the healthcare insurance industry can only maintain its profits by significantly cutting what it provides, and dumpig huge numbers of people onto the existing government programs or the last-ditch, 'emergency care only' (except for minor costs) world of the uninsured.

[PLAYER57832]

BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors! It's a benefit to everyone and gives doctors more work, which is good!

More work for less money.* Sounds great!



*Remember, Medicare only reimburses doctors 60-80% of the actual costs of procedures.

Nope, it's actually more work for more money than they would get, otherwise. An old guy with insurance makes a doctor money, an old guy without doesn't. This is actually not all that difficult a concept. Also, plz define "actual cost." Pretty sure physicians don't get run dry by Medicare.

There's a HUGE difference between running dry and getting the money you're supposed to be paid. Most of the time, depending on your profit margins, you can skimp on a few sales as long as the bulk of your sales are at their normal prices, which allows for occasional bartering or negotiating of price rates if you really want to make a sale. However, when the government's system frequently short-changes on their purchases, then it will cause the business (in this case doctors) to close-up shop.

If you're selling a widget for $100, but customers are only paying $75 and walking out the door with your widget, are you going to be able to stay in business? In fact, isn't that considered theft if you don't pay the proper price for an item? Yet the government is allowed to get away with it on most, if not every, Medicare transaction while the doctors are still forced to do the same amount of work. If universal healthcare is supposed to be about fairness, how is it fair to short-change the doctor's compensation?

I see, now you are arguing that government pays doctors too little and that is why it is bad.

Before you argued that government was paying too much for things, was inherently wasteful.

Which is it.?

[Mr_Adams]

1) Healthcare isn't a manufactured good, it is a service. either way, government involvement won't help.

Why has it in other nations then? You still haven't explained.

2)Karl Marx worte: "We have seen... that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the ruling class, to establish democracy. The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie; to centralize all of instruments of production in the hands of the state."
In short, socialism now, communism later.

You forgot the whole revolution part. Or is universal healthcare going to lead to a revolution?

3)As I said, Universal Healthcare is more unnecessary government involvement, and one more step towards socialism.

The boogeyman.

1) because the US government has become one of the most ineffective, corrupt governments in the world. the reason it still functions is the massive size of the economy it has to tax. Until it is fixed, nothing should be done at all.

2) In an established democracy, revolutions happen quietly, through coercion. It's been happening for years.

3) This is why universal healthcare should NEVER happen. However, it's proponents simply dismiss it's opponents as alarmists. Ironically, and I will bring this back around to Russia, that's what happened with the non-militant opponents of the Bolshevik revolution. And then they were killed.

[GreecePwns]

The boogeyman.

No... it's not the boogeyman. You want to call it the boogeyman because you hope that the federal government will be able to provide universal health insurance with limited resources and with limited inefficiency. I challenge you to find some programs that the federal government runs in an efficient and worthwhile manner. Let's take the four biggest - public education, Medicare, social security, and the military. Of these four, are any run efficiently? Could any of them be run better by private institutions? How about the postal service? How about the Environmental Protection Agency or the FDA? Are these well-run organizations?

Those of us who think they are not well-run organizations are the same people who don't think the federal government is the best option to run our health insurance (or healthcare system).

Why are they run inefficently though and what are my positions on those four?

Public education? I have detailed my position to you before about NCLB's punishing of porr schools (as opposed to aiding them) and teaching to the test, which, NCLB or not, is why we don't get results.

Social Security? Because the tax to fund it is capped at a certain income, asking the poor to help aid the poor. On top of that, the money raised is borrowed by the government. Removing the cap on the SS tax and making this borrowing impossible would make Social Security solvent indefinitely. It should essentially operate in a vaccum.

The military? I cannot explain, as I don't have the knowledge.

In the end, an unpaid for government is a more efficient government. Which is why elections should be publicly funded. Should this happen

[thegreekdog]

And you'll argue that we waste a lot, but won't see that in a study BBS posted in some other thread (the CLEAR one by MIT, I have to find it somewhere) that we are not the most corrupt or wasteful government with a fully public system. Yet their systems are still more efficient than ours. Why is that?

Because their legislatures aren't as corrupt or inefficient as ours? I don't know.

No, because our system is built on making money for insurance companies. Not doctors, not providing truly better care, though up until recently those goals worked hand-in-hand with insurance. Now, when costs have skyrocketed, employment is down, the healthcare insurance industry can only maintain its profits by significantly cutting what it provides, and dumpig huge numbers of people onto the existing government programs or the last-ditch, 'emergency care only' (except for minor costs) world of the uninsured.

Right - because our government is corrupt and takes money from insurance companies (the lot of them from both sides of the aisle). And that is the reason we don't have universal health insurance right now (instead we have the "you have to buy health insurance or else..." plan).

[GreecePwns]

BACK ON TOPIC:
Universal healthcare is not slavery for doctors! It's a benefit to everyone and gives doctors more work, which is good!

More work for less money.* Sounds great!



*Remember, Medicare only reimburses doctors 60-80% of the actual costs of procedures.

Nope, it's actually more work for more money than they would get, otherwise. An old guy with insurance makes a doctor money, an old guy without doesn't. This is actually not all that difficult a concept. Also, plz define "actual cost." Pretty sure physicians don't get run dry by Medicare.

There's a HUGE difference between running dry and getting the money you're supposed to be paid. Most of the time, depending on your profit margins, you can skimp on a few sales as long as the bulk of your sales are at their normal prices, which allows for occasional bartering or negotiating of price rates if you really want to make a sale. However, when the government's system frequently short-changes on their purchases, then it will cause the business (in this case doctors) to close-up shop.

If you're selling a widget for $100, but customers are only paying $75 and walking out the door with your widget, are you going to be able to stay in business? In fact, isn't that considered theft if you don't pay the proper price for an item? Yet the government is allowed to get away with it on most, if not every, Medicare transaction while the doctors are still forced to do the same amount of work. If universal healthcare is supposed to be about fairness, how is it fair to short-change the doctor's compensation?

I see, now you are arguing that government pays doctors too little and that is why it is bad.

Before you argued that government was paying too much for things, was inherently wasteful.

Which is it.?

Aaaaaaaaand [/thread]

[thegreekdog]

The boogeyman.

No... it's not the boogeyman. You want to call it the boogeyman because you hope that the federal government will be able to provide universal health insurance with limited resources and with limited inefficiency. I challenge you to find some programs that the federal government runs in an efficient and worthwhile manner. Let's take the four biggest - public education, Medicare, social security, and the military. Of these four, are any run efficiently? Could any of them be run better by private institutions? How about the postal service? How about the Environmental Protection Agency or the FDA? Are these well-run organizations?

Those of us who think they are not well-run organizations are the same people who don't think the federal government is the best option to run our health insurance (or healthcare system).

Why are they run inefficently though and what are my positions on those four?

Public education? I have detailed my position to you before about NCLB's punishing of porr schools (as opposed to aiding them) and teaching to the test, which, NCLB or not, is why we don't get results.

Social Security? Because the tax to fund it is capped at a certain income, asking the poor to help aid the poor. On top of that, the money raised is borrowed by the government. Removing the cap on the SS tax and making this borrowing impossible would make Social Security solvent indefinitely. It should essentially operate in a vaccum.

The military? I cannot explain, as I don't have the knowledge.

In the end, an unpaid for government is a more efficient government. Which is why elections should be publicly funded. Should this happen

I don't disagree. I don't disagree that public education and social security are broken and I don't disagree with the reasons you provided (although I think public education has been broken for a long time... as you know from other discussions). I was referring to the military for two reasons: (1) they are a huge portion of the budget, (2) I didn't want you to think I was being partisan if I excluded it.

And I agree with the unpaid-for government. Hey, how about that!

And guess what, we don't have a great social security system. We don't have a great public education system. We don't have an efficient military. We don't have a great Medicare system. We don't have a great post office system. And yet you think we'll be able to have a great health insurance system. And I'm the one who believe in fairy tales? Really?

[GreecePwns]

The boogeyman.

No... it's not the boogeyman. You want to call it the boogeyman because you hope that the federal government will be able to provide universal health insurance with limited resources and with limited inefficiency. I challenge you to find some programs that the federal government runs in an efficient and worthwhile manner. Let's take the four biggest - public education, Medicare, social security, and the military. Of these four, are any run efficiently? Could any of them be run better by private institutions? How about the postal service? How about the Environmental Protection Agency or the FDA? Are these well-run organizations?

Those of us who think they are not well-run organizations are the same people who don't think the federal government is the best option to run our health insurance (or healthcare system).

Why are they run inefficently though and what are my positions on those four?

Public education? I have detailed my position to you before about NCLB's punishing of porr schools (as opposed to aiding them) and teaching to the test, which, NCLB or not, is why we don't get results.

Social Security? Because the tax to fund it is capped at a certain income, asking the poor to help aid the poor. On top of that, the money raised is borrowed by the government. Removing the cap on the SS tax and making this borrowing impossible would make Social Security solvent indefinitely. It should essentially operate in a vaccum.

The military? I cannot explain, as I don't have the knowledge.

In the end, an unpaid for government is a more efficient government. Which is why elections should be publicly funded. Should this happen

I don't disagree. I don't disagree that public education and social security are broken and I don't disagree with the reasons you provided (although I think public education has been broken for a long time... as you know from other discussions). I was referring to the military for two reasons: (1) they are a huge portion of the budget, (2) I didn't want you to think I was being partisan if I excluded it.

And I agree with the unpaid-for government. Hey, how about that!

And guess what, we don't have a great social security system. We don't have a great public education system. We don't have an efficient military. We don't have a great Medicare system. We don't have a great post office system. And yet you think we'll be able to have a great health insurance system. And I'm the one who believe in fairy tales? Really?

What you're saying is not what Mr_Adams said. At all.

Publicly funded elections (and proportional representation) are the foundations of a government that acts on the will of its people. After that, anythign is really possible.

[comic boy]

Nokia. Finnish government is much less intrusive than Greece's. The capitalistic part of your economy is large enough to overcome the socialistic parts.

Which is true of most of Europe and would still be true of the USA even if your healthcare reform was twice as radical , your arguments are the same 'reds under the beds ' tosh that was discredited in the fifties.

It's not a question of "oh noes, herez the commies!" That's a strawman argument, which might be relevant in that a lot of conservative pundits use some form of that phrase to describe socialized healthcare.

The discussion, from the "we don't want government provided universal healthcare" side of the aisle, is whether we can do it better the other way. The answer might be yes and some of us would like to try that before handing healthcare over to a federal government that is close to bankrupt, corrupt, and inefficient (and doesn't like letting stuff go once it has its hands on it).

I feel your pain , it cant be easy trying to get your view across when you are 'supported' by a dinosaur who thinks the UK was once communist
I should say that your point is fair enough except that it must be said that the healthcare industry previously showed little appetite for change , you could say that they brought the problem on themselves.
In the long term the ideal situation is a well managed public/private partnership , this actually happens in other countries but seems to be deliberately ignored by the scaremongers.
This debate really sums up the polarisation currently rampant in the USA today , there seems to be no room for compromise or moderation , its not a healthy situation.

[Mr_Adams]

by "unpaid for" gvernment, I am to assume you mean a government that can be purchased by special interests? In which case, I may, again, refer you to a book. Or I might copy a paragraph or two here.