The US healthcare debate (split from "True stories of socialized medicine") [Archive]

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 06:58 PM

Isn't that the point, though - to undermine the ridiculous margins of the current market? Yes, competition will screw up the monopoly of a market.
That is the point, I believe, but I call it idealistic and short-sighted, for reasons I state.

I don't know if this follows. Do health insurance corporations develop medical technology/techniques? Do private hospitals? I would think this is more the realm of universities and medical research firms, and I'm not sure they would be directly affected by the introduction of a government supported system.
There are some qualities, some incorporate things, that have a double life, which thus is made. A type of twin entity, which springs, from matter and light, evinced in solid and shade. /Poe

In other words, it's all connected. The money travels from the consumer all the way to the developers of drugs, machines, etc., and if you decrease the indirect funding, the profit-seeking C.E.O.s will funnel less resources into research and development. Due to strategy, and also more undeniably, due to the simple fact they will have less resources in the first place.

ciphersort

18 Aug 2009, 07:03 PM

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 07:09 PM

It doesn't follow though, the correlation between efficacy and competition.

The government makes the rules, and if they decide to give free health care to millions of people, however shitty it is (And perhaps more importantly, however inefficient it is), it screws the market up pretty badly for independent providers.

And, of course, it can lead to stagnation in technique development. Being that the USA is one of, if not the greatest driving force in medical technology, that would be undesirable at best.

The 'public option' would only be available to small companies and individuals, and not to large companies. Thus, it is not going to 'screw the market up'. The insurance market is already screwed up for small companies and individuals.

I've worked for the same small company for over 10 years. At first they paid for my full coverage, then half, eventually they totally dropped my insurance due to no longer being able to afford it. I've looked into getting an individual health policy, but if I only paid the same rate that I was paying when I paid for half my insurance, my yearly deductible would be in the neighborhood of $10,000. To get a policy with a reasonable deductible, I'd have to pay around $650 a month, which is most of my 'disposable' income.

If the government does create a public option, which would provide group rates for individuals such as myself, it would benefit me greatly. And while it might be free for the very poor, it wouldn't be free for all, and I'm sure that it wouldn't be free for me. Basically its just a way to help individuals and small companies get rates that are equitable with the group rates that large companies get - which I would gladly pay.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 07:12 PM

That is the point, I believe, but I call it idealistic and short-sighted, for reasons I state.
Which reasons? You only stated that it'll screw up the market for the independent providers, which I said was a good thing, but I'm not seeing any arguments for it being idealistic or short-sighted.

There are some qualities, some incorporate things, that have a double life, which thus is made. A type of twin entity, which springs, from matter and light, evinced in solid and shade. /Poe

In other words, it's all connected. The money travels from the consumer all the way to the developers of drugs, machines, etc.
No, no...you're thinking of socialism. In the free market, that money goes in the pockets of the CEOs, who use it to buy yachts.

Drugs and medical tech will be in just as much demand if a public option is introduced.

Ferrus

18 Aug 2009, 07:18 PM

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 07:20 PM

Drugs and medical tech will be in just as much demand if a public option is introduced.

Correct. The public option would simply help administer health care for small companies and individuals; it does not 'deliver' health care at all. (doctors would not work for the government, and the government would not take over hospitals or drug companies).

euterpenc

18 Aug 2009, 07:21 PM

Isn't that the point, though - to undermine the ridiculous margins of the current market? Yes, competition will screw up the monopoly of a market.

My concern is that the government will be the new monopoly. The bailouts and such like frighten me since it essentially amounts to the government buying private businesses.

Ironically, there are issues like this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/your-local-post-office-is-closing-saturday-delivery-is-in-danger-but-obama-still-likes-as-model-for-.html

The reason FedEx and UPS, etc. exist is because there is a market for them, because they perform well enough to compete with the U.S. Postal Service. However, unlike the U.S. Postal Service, they don't simply lose money with no hope of return. This points to an issue in the efficiency of government programs. They cannot perform as well as private business in most cases since the government is not a business in the conventional sense. Their goal isn't to make their money back, and perhaps they don't need to, because they have an "endless" supply of revenue from taxpayers. If the government program loses money, taxpayer money, and ends up being a black hole for resources, perhaps it really isn't worth it. Does the money invested in such a program result in a net savings to anyone? If so, is this savings greater than or equal to the amount of tax dollars invested in it? I think the answer to these questions in most cases is "no."

Since I'm still young I am covered under my father's health insurance benefits from his job. However, I have not had to use the services much since I am healthy and pretty much accident-free. With a few minor exceptions, most of my personal health expenses could be paid out of pocket. Health care expenses go up when one is unhealthy and uses the services more. That's how insurance works. So, if people were more healthy, health care costs would go down. When there are figures out there that state that about 25% of Americans are obese and over 50% are overweight. No wonder health care costs are so high. How much money would people save if they took care of their bodies? :stupid:

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 07:22 PM

It shouldn't also be forgotten that the commericalisation of medicine leads to money being funnelled into profitably but medically dubious research, like balding and impotency cures whilst antibiotics and other such methods are let to become gradually useless.
Not to mention the inevitable bias towards researching treatments as opposed to cures. But that's the pharma industry, and it has its own fucked up problems, separate from those of the health care industry.

My concern is that the government will be the new monopoly. The bailouts and such like frighten me since it essentially amounts to the government buying private businesses.

Ironically, there are issues like this: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/08/your-local-post-office-is-closing-saturday-delivery-is-in-danger-but-obama-still-likes-as-model-for-.html

The reason FedEx and UPS, etc. exist is because there is a market for them, because they perform well enough to compete with the U.S. Postal Service. However, unlike the U.S. Postal Service, they don't simply lose money with no hope of return. This points to an issue in the efficiency of government programs. They cannot perform as well as private business in most cases since the government is not a business in the conventional sense. Their goal isn't to make their money back, and perhaps they don't need to, because they have an "endless" supply of revenue from taxpayers. If the government program loses money, taxpayer money, and ends up being a black hole for resources, perhaps it really isn't worth it. Does the money invested in such a program result in a net savings to anyone? If so, is this savings greater than or equal to the amount of tax dollars invested in it? I think the answer to these questions in most cases is "no."

Since I'm still young I am covered under my father's health insurance benefits from his job. However, I have not had to use the services much since I am healthy and pretty much accident-free. With a few minor exceptions, most of my personal health expenses could be paid out of pocket. Health care expenses go up when one is unhealthy and uses the services more. That's how insurance works. So, if people were more healthy, health care costs would go down. When there are figures out there that state that about 25% of Americans are obese and over 50% are overweight. No wonder health care costs are so high. How much money would people save if they took care of their bodies? :stupid:
I don't buy this, primarily for the reason that I don't think the government has an interest in monopolising the industry. They want to secure votes and satisfy health insurance lobbyists.

Ferrus

18 Aug 2009, 07:23 PM

Not to mention the inevitable bias towards researching treatments as opposed to cures. But that's the pharma industry, and it has its own fucked up problems entirely separate from those of the health care industry.
Indeed - but as Technical wished to affirm - it is all interconnected.

euterpenc

18 Aug 2009, 07:26 PM

It shouldn't also be forgotten that the commericalisation of medicine often leads to money being funnelled into profitably but medically dubious research, like balding and impotency cures whilst antibiotics and other such methods are let to become gradually useless.

Perhaps so. However, I don't really see the government doing any better with this. They will give people what they want before what they need just the same. That's how politicians stay in power: bribing the public (in some form or another). People can't put up with their existential angst and cope with the suffering of life? They want drugs to dull the pain. This desire for comfort turns into a "need" which must be fulfilled. If satisfying this "need" through health-care reform will buy votes, then it will be used to do so.

On those profitable but dubious researches, that will happen anyway. People will buy useless or quick fix problems regardless. Even if we instituted a government health-care plan, people would still buy things like "No-Evil Oil."

euterpenc

18 Aug 2009, 07:30 PM

Not to mention the inevitable bias towards researching treatments as opposed to cures. But that's the pharma industry, and it has its own fucked up problems, separate from those of the health care industry.

Well, there is a market for those things. That industry booms because people want quick and easy solutions. Drugs help people do things more quickly and with less effort, be it weight loss, dealing with depression, etc. People somehow feel that if they are not happy all the time something is wrong, and drugs are needed. Life sucks sometimes, and medication isn't the answer. However, the government does not help the situation, and sometimes even enables it. The corporations and the government [officials] often scratch each others' backs.

Note: Part of why marijuana remains illegal is from threat of competition to pharma companies.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 07:44 PM

The corporations and the government [officials] often scratch each others' backs.

True.

I find it incredible that we currently spend $28 billion a year on biomedical research, with strong GOP support. There was no public outrage or great debate over that.

The biomedical research grants mostly go to big pharmaceutical companies, that profit greatly off of the drugs that they create with government funding.

Yet when there is a movement to spend around 4 - 5 times the $28 billion amount, on a program that would directly benefit at least 45 million Americans, there is a huge GOP backlash.

$140 billion a year is a lot of money, but not that much when compared to defense/nuclear weapons spending (and heck, we just forked over $700 billion to Wall Street).

In the eyes of the GOP, it seems that: Government money to help corporations - good. Government money to help US individual citizens - bad.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 07:48 PM

In the eyes of the GOP, it seems that: Government money to help corporations - good. Government money to help US individual citizens - bad.
This might be true (certainly seems that way), but perhaps another fundamental dynamic is: opposing the democrats = good.

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 07:50 PM

...This points to an issue in the efficiency of government programs. They cannot perform as well as private business in most cases since the government is not a business in the conventional sense. Their goal isn't to make their money back, and perhaps they don't need to, because they have an "endless" supply of revenue from taxpayers. If the government program loses money, taxpayer money, and ends up being a black hole for resources, perhaps it really isn't worth it...
This is all essential for anyone who's even attempting to be objective to consider. On this specific issue, and countless others.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 07:52 PM

This might be true (certainly seems that way), but perhaps another fundamental dynamic is: opposing the democrats = good.

An equally valid observation, my friend. And more likely the main driving force behind all the disinformation (which is generating all the anger).

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 07:56 PM

No, no...you're thinking of socialism. In the free market, that money goes in the pockets of the CEOs, who use it to buy yachts.
In all honesty, I don't think you're taking the big picture into proper account, because of your spite for the rich. Emotion and long-term forecasting are a notorious match.

Yes, they spend on Luxury, but they also invest, out of speculation on future profit. This investment is what's led to just about every complex human invention, indirectly.

Drugs and medical tech will be in just as much demand if a public option is introduced.
Just as in demand, of course, but what shrewd, inventive government organization will be in charge of supply? The CIA?

An equally valid observation, my friend. And more likely the main driving force behind all the disinformation (which is generating all the anger).
How utterly ironic, since it's the liberals who are more spiteful of conservatives, everywhere.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 07:58 PM

In the eyes of the GOP, it seems that: Government money to help corporations - good. Government money to help US individual citizens - bad.

Such bliss when our choices are between the inefficiencies of corporatism and the injustices of socialism.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:00 PM

How utterly ironic, since it's the liberals who are more spiteful of conservatives, everywhere.

Not to mention a larger overall stake in the media and greater general usage of such.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 08:02 PM

Originally Posted by zeitgeist View Post
...This points to an issue in the efficiency of government programs. They cannot perform as well as private business in most cases since the government is not a business in the conventional sense. Their goal isn't to make their money back, and perhaps they don't need to, because they have an "endless" supply of revenue from taxpayers. If the government program loses money, taxpayer money, and ends up being a black hole for resources, perhaps it really isn't worth it...

And yet the government-run VA hospitals are now rated higher than public hospitals:

The VA runs the largest integrated health-care system in the country, with more than 1,400 hospitals, clinics and nursing homes employing 14,800 doctors and 61,000 nurses. And by a number of measures, this government-managed health-care program--socialized medicine on a small scale--is beating the marketplace. For the sixth year in a row, VA hospitals last year scored higher than private facilities on the University of Michigan's American Customer Satisfaction Index, based on patient surveys on the quality of care received.

"How Veterans' Hospitals Became the Best in Health Care"
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1376238,00.html

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 08:05 PM

Not to mention a larger overall stake in the media and greater general usage of such.
By quite a margin. I mentioned once before here that even the late night talk-shows, formerly the "last bastian of popular skepticism," essentially refuse to openly question this Democratic administration's actions.

And yet the government-run VA hospitals are now rated higher than public hospitals:
That's propaganda, equivalent to saying McDonald's hamburgers are the most nutritious, because of Billions And Billions Served.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 08:12 PM

In all honesty, I don't think you're taking the big picture into proper account, because of your spite for the rich. Emotion and long-term forecasting are a notorious match.
Interesting theory...but false.

Yes, they spend on Luxury, but they also invest, out of speculation on future profit. This investment is what's led to just about every complex human invention, indirectly.
Much like the government would invest in those things if that same money went to them, except the government would have an interest in investing in medical research that serves humanity first, as opposed to serving profit first. And minus the massive margin that goes towards yachts, etc.

Just as in demand, of course, but what shrewd, inventive government organization will be in charge of supply? The CIA?
This seems a blatant strawman. You are suggesting the government is planning to socialise the pharma industry and medical research industry..?

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 08:17 PM

Interesting theory...but false.

Much like the government would invest in those things if that same money went to them, except the government would have an interest in investing in medical research that serves humanity first, as opposed to serving profit first. And minus the massive margin that goes towards yachts, etc.
I'd refer you to zeitgeist's post about efficiency, if I thought it would make a difference.

Oh, about yachts, etc. This happens to be another way in which the Horrible Rich increase the lot of the non-rich. By spending on fantastic contraptions, this in turn creates further demand for innovation, and thus supply, thanks to Free Enterprise. And over the course of time, the resulting innovations are passed down to cheaper products.

This seems a blatant strawman. You are suggesting the government is planning to socialise the pharma industry and medical research industry..?
More a joke. Like Democratic policy, amirite! *low-five*

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:18 PM

By quite a margin. I mentioned once before here that even the late night talk-shows, formerly the "last bastian of popular skepticism," essentially refuse to openly question this Democratic administration's actions.

The one thing I miss about the Republicans in office.. at least the media at large regularly questioned the government (except Fox, but noone here expects anything worthwhile besides a laugh out of them).

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:19 PM

Oh, about yachts, etc. This happens to be another way in which the Horrible Rich increase the lot of the non-rich. By spending on fantastic contraptions, this in turn creates further demand for innovation, and thus supply, thanks to Free Enterprise. And over the course of time, the resulting innovations are passed down to cheaper products.

I think perhaps our socialist-leaning compatriot was forgetting about all those workers making a living off of making those yachts, and their electronic systems, and their engines...

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 08:23 PM

I think perhaps our socialist-leaning compatriot was forgetting about all those workers making a living off of making those yachts, and their electronic systems, and their engines...
Well, there are plenty of workers in socialist systems too. But innovations, not so much. How about that East German car (The only one you could get, I think), with the three-year waiting list? Classic socialism.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:24 PM

Well, there are plenty of workers in socialist systems too. But innovations, not so much.

I was insinuating that he might be seeing such arguments as innovations vs. workers, whereas its actually workers and innovations vs. workers.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 08:26 PM

That's propaganda, equivalent to saying McDonald's hamburgers are the most nutritious, because of Billions And Billions Served.

So surveys of customer satisfaction are propaganda? The American Customer Satisfaction Index, which did the survey, also measures customer satisfaction annually for more than 200 companies in 43 industries and 10 economic sectors. I suppose all of those findings are mere propaganda as well? As a matter of fact, the ACSI's methodology has been so successful that its been adopted by several international groups and universities.

You and Zeitgeist have been discussing how government services cannot compare to that of those of private companies...yet you've offered no data to back that up. And you're claiming that I'm the one spouting propaganda?

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 08:27 PM

I'd refer you to zeitgeist's post about efficiency, if I thought it would make a difference.
You are arguing that a monopolised market is more efficient than a competitive one?

Oh, about yachts, etc. This happens to be another way in which the Horrible Rich increase the lot of the non-rich. By spending on fantastic contraptions, this in turn creates further demand for innovation, and thus supply, thanks to Free Enterprise. And over the course of time, the resulting innovations are passed down to cheaper products.
I think all those aspects of free enterprise are great and all. The main point of this debate, which perhaps has been lost on you, is that someone shouldn't have to choose between paying off a mortgage, and paying for cancer treatment, and that money going towards some CEO's yacht. Free enterprise, no problem, except when it competes with the interests of the vast majority of the population.

More a joke. Like Democratic policy, amirite! *low-five*
Ah, the old "it was a joke! you just don't have a sense of humour!" line. Nice save.

ciphersort

18 Aug 2009, 08:29 PM

I have always felt that the way the AMA limits the number of doctors, physicians, and nurses to be the real problem. I feel this bullshit should be stopped.

The Medical Cartel: Why are MD Salaries So High? (http://wallstreetpit.com/5769-the-medical-cartel-why-are-md-salaries-so-high)

Really, is that efficient? Every year totally qualified and willing to pay applicants are turned away from medical schools (as many as half at some nursing schools where I have friends attending) because the number of schools (and thus the number of students/graduates) is limited artificially.

http://wallstreetpit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/image0271.png

http://wallstreetpit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/image0272.png

http://wallstreetpit.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/image0273.png

American Medical Association (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Medical_Association#Criticisms)
Criticisms

Critics of the American Medical Association, including economist Milton Friedman, have asserted that the organization acts as a guild and has attempted to increase physicians' wages and fees limit by influencing limitations on the supply of physicians and non-physician competition. In Free to Choose, Friedman said "The AMA has engaged in extensive litigation charging chiropractors and osteopaths with the unlicensed practice of medicine, in an attempt to restrict them to as narrow an area as possible."

Profession and monopoly, a book published in 1975 is critical of the AMA for limiting the supply of physicians and inflating the cost of medical care in the United States. The book claims that physician supply is kept low by the AMA to ensure high pay for practicing physicians. It states that in the United States the number, curriculum, and size of medical schools are restricted by state licensing boards controlled by representatives of state medical societies associated with the AMA. The book is also critical of the ethical rules adopted by the AMA which restrict advertisement and other types of competition between professionals. It points out that advertising and bargaining can result in expulsion from the AMA and legal revocation of licenses. The book also states that before 1912 the AMA included uniform fees for specific medical procedures in its official code of ethics. The AMA's influence on hospital regulation was also criticized in the book.[13]

The AMA and other industry groups predicted an over-supply of doctors, and worked to limit the number of new doctors. But recently, the AMA has changed its position, predicting a doctor shortage instead. [7]

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:35 PM

So surveys of customer satisfaction are propaganda? The American Customer Satisfaction Index, which did the survey, also measures customer satisfaction annually for more than 200 companies in 43 industries and 10 economic sectors. I suppose all of those findings are mere propaganda as well? As a matter of fact, the ACSI's methodology has been so successful that its been adopted by several international groups and universities.

You and Zeitgeist have been discussing how government services cannot compare to that of those of private companies...yet you've offered no data to back that up. And you're claiming that I'm the one spouting propaganda?

Yet American healthcare satisfaction is lower than in European/other countries who spend less money per capita on healthcare and/or have less regulation in the private industries. Hmmm....

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 08:36 PM

You are arguing that a monopolised market is more efficient than a competitive one?
Now who's manning the straw! Monopolies are bad, when they're unbreakable by other entities in the free market who wish to compete. The glory though, of the free market, is that a monopoly can be acceptable. If no one wants a better product, for a better price, everything's straight dandy.

I think all those aspects of free enterprise are great and all. The main point of this debate, which perhaps has been lost on you, is that someone shouldn't have to choose between paying off a mortgage, and paying for cancer treatment, and that money going towards some CEO's yacht. Free enterprise, no problem, except when it competes with the interests of the vast majority of the population.
I assure you I've considered effects. That's all I've been talking about. What I compare is 1., The risk that one in one million won't be able to afford treatment, and 2., The inefficiency and non-innovation that actually results from literally removing freedom.

When you introduce massive control into a free system to solve a relatively small problem (As in, it effects few), the unintended consequences become more of a problem than anything you were dealing with before--Consequences like stagnation.

Ah, the old "it was a joke! you just don't have a sense of humour!" line. Nice save.
I estimate that some people found the CIA crack rather humorous. And he who seeks to entertain all entertains no one. Thankfully, it's a free country, sort of.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:38 PM

money going towards some CEO's yacht.

Otherwise known as money going towards the laborers that built the yacht, the laborers that built its electronics, the labors that built its systems, and the innovators that designed them.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 08:40 PM

...What I compare is the risk that 1., One in one million won't be able to afford treatment, and 2., The inefficiency and non-innovation that actually results from literally removing freedom.

How is giving the public more health insurance options 'removing freedom'?

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 08:41 PM

ciphersort

18 Aug 2009, 08:45 PM

A great example of outside control's unintended consequences.

Yeah, but it is a private organization controlling it. Like I said, I'd agree with you if healthcare was unregulated, but it isn't going to be. That's a pipe dream - too much money involved.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:48 PM

Yeah, but it is a private organization controlling it. Like I said, I'd agree with you if healthcare was unregulated.

Private organizations can fuck up just as well as government ones (the difference, of course, is you have many private orgs vs one government to choose from). However, it should be noted a large part of the AMA's dominance and some of its policy is due to, as you pointed out, regulation.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 08:48 PM

Yet American healthcare satisfaction is lower than in European/other countries who spend less money per capita on healthcare and/or have less regulation in the private industries. Hmmm....

I'm not sure which side of this debate you're on, UK.

In some posts you're sympathetic to the recipients of the trickle-down flow of capitalism, yet in this post you acknowledge that citizens in countries with socialized health care in many ways are statistically healthier than Americans...and that their HC systems are cheaper to operate.

Could it be that you just like playing the Devil's Advocate?

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 08:49 PM

Now who's manning the straw! Monopolies are bad, when they're unbreakable by other entities in the free market who wish to compete. The glory though, of the free market, is that a monopoly can be acceptable. If no one wants a better product, for a better price, everything's straight dandy.
So, you are saying no one wants a better product, for a better price? :lol:

Ok now seriously, address my point about efficiency in monopolised markets vs competitive markets.

I assure you I've considered effects. That's all I've been talking about. What I compare is the risk that 1., One in one million won't be able to afford treatment, and 2., The inefficiency and non-innovation that actually results from literally removing freedom.

When you introduce massive control into a free system to solve a relatively small problem (As in, it effects few), the unintended consequences become more of a problem than anything you were dealing with before--Consequences like stagnation.
I take it you consider "one in a million" and "relatively small problem" to be objective Facts? Of course you do - you saw it on fox, and the tv doesn't lie.

I estimate that some people found the CIA crack rather humorous. And he who seeks to entertain all entertains no one. Thankfully, it's a free country, sort of.
It is clear to everyone that I was responding to the first part of the quoted text, and not the tacked on CIA "joke", and that you are desparately avoiding conceding a point. So I'm happy to let this rest.

ciphersort

18 Aug 2009, 08:50 PM

Private organizations can fuck up just as well as government ones (the difference, of course, is you have many private orgs vs one government to choose from). However, it should be noted a large part of the AMA's dominance and some of its policy is due to, as you pointed out, regulation.

There is no other choice in the US except the AMA in this case. Yep though, my point is, there are many kinds of governments, but the kind that self determines their own salaries by limiting who can participate... well, we already have one like that :)

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:51 PM

So, you are saying no one wants a better product, for a better price? :lol:

Go go gadget reading comprehension. I thought it was rather obvious from context that he was implying that if the monopoly is offering the best ratio of price:service in a free market, there's nothing wrong with the monopoly.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:52 PM

There is no other choice in the US except the AMA in this case.

Thanks to... tada.. regulation.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 08:54 PM

Otherwise known as money going towards the laborers that built the yacht, the laborers that built its electronics, the labors that built its systems, and the innovators that designed them.
Does the guy using his mortgage money to pay for his cancer treatment get any benefit from that yacht, or the making of it? The money doesn't all magically filter down to the common folk. It filters the up and stays up, which is why wealth is so concentrated amongst such few individuals.

Go go gadget reading comprehension. I thought it was rather obvious from context that he was implying that if the monopoly is offering the best ratio of price:service in a free market, there's nothing wrong with the monopoly.
Hypotheticals are fun. Yes, I understood his point, and was countering it with an appeal to reality.

C.J.Woolf

18 Aug 2009, 08:56 PM

This might be true (certainly seems that way), but perhaps another fundamental dynamic is: opposing the democrats = good.
Republican strategists fear another New Deal. The first one cast them out of power for decades. The Democrats need to realize that the Republicans in Congress won't vote for any bill except one that profits big business and doesn't do jack for anyone else; i.e., the kind of bills the GOP passed when they were in power. The Dems will have have to pass health care reform over the GOP's dead body.

This is all essential for anyone who's even attempting to be objective to consider. On this specific issue, and countless others.
Ah, but there is more than one way to be objective. What if We the People decide that health care should be treated as a public service, one that everyone should have? Like police and firefighters? One seldom hears discussion about the business models of the police and fire departments. Free-market solutions are okay as long as it is accepted that some people could be priced out of the market. Public services are based on the assumption that it is not okay for individuals to be denied police and fire protection and whatnot based on lack of ability to pay for it.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:56 PM

Does the guy using his mortgage money to pay for his cancer treatment get any benefit from that yacht, or the making of it? The money doesn't all magically filter down to the common folk. It filters the up and stays up, which is why wealth is so concentrated amongst such few individuals.

Sounds like he took out a mortgage that wouldn't allow him financial freedom in the future.. oops.. better place that burden on American taxpayers, poor guy...

Hypotheticals are fun. Yes, I understood his point, and was countering it with an appeal to reality. authority.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 08:59 PM

Sounds like he took out a mortgage that wouldn't allow him financial freedom in the future.. oops.. better place that burden on American taxpayers, poor guy...
Who needs a home, when the American Dream is all about paying off hospital debts, eh?

Hypotheticals are fun. Yes, I understood his point, and was countering it with an appeal to reality. authority...
Which authority am I appealing to, precisely, and how is it less reasonable than tech's absurd made up statistics?

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 08:59 PM

So, you are saying no one wants a better product, for a better price? :lol:

Ok now seriously, address my point about efficiency in monopolised markets vs competitive markets.
This:

Go go gadget reading comprehension. I thought it was rather obvious from context that he was implying that if the monopoly is offering the best ratio of price:service in a free market, there's nothing wrong with the monopoly.
_______________________________________________________

I take it you consider "one in a million" and "relatively small problem" to be objective Facts? Of course you do - you saw it on fox, and the tv doesn't lie.Not objective facts, just off-hand approximations. It is very rare today in the USA for people not to receive treatment for life-threatening illnesses.

It is clear to everyone that I was responding to the first part of the quoted text, and not the tacked on CIA "joke", and that you are desparately avoiding conceding a point. So I'm happy to let this rest.You should have let it rest before you started down this silly path. The whole statement was the joke, and "The CIA?" was the punchline.

Hermione

18 Aug 2009, 08:59 PM

Does the guy using his mortgage money to pay for his cancer treatment get any benefit from that yacht, or the making of it? The money doesn't all magically filter down to the common folk. It filters the up and stays up, which is why wealth is so concentrated amongst such few individuals.

Hypotheticals are fun. Yes, I understood his point, and was countering it with an appeal to reality.

Bam! Indeed.

You realize you are arguing a case against people who can't even come up with accurate facts for gawdssakes, right? [ I like to call those lies .. just for accuracy's sake.]

This is the way it's done over here, Dekard. See? Told you so. You can't even have debate or discussion. Their way or no way. We can all drop dead and the nice little christian people don't give a rat's ass. Totally true.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 08:59 PM

Republican strategists fear another New Deal. The first one cast them out of power for decades. The Democrats need to realize that the Republicans in Congress won't vote for any bill except one that profits big business and doesn't do jack for anyone else; i.e., the kind of bills the GOP passed when they were in power. The Dems will have have to pass health care reform over the GOP's dead body.

The New Deal prolonged the suffering for millions of people. Good thing we had millions of Germans and Japanese to blow up to get our economy going. <_<

Even an anti-republican like me is opposed to another New Deal.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:01 PM

Who needs a home, when the American Dream is all about paying off hospital debts, eh?

Well, yea, healthcare is a service. You pay for it, you get a higher quality/longer life.

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 09:04 PM

Ah, but there is more than one way to be objective. What if We the People decide that health care should be treated as a public service, one that everyone should have? Like police and firefighters? One seldom hears discussion about the business models of the police and fire departments. Free-market solutions are okay as long as it is accepted that some people could be priced out of the market. Public services are based on the assumption that it is not okay for individuals to be denied police and fire protection and whatnot based on lack of ability to pay for it.
We the People? A lot of people are idiots, but the founding fathers weren't. Besides, "People have no grasp of what they do." --Thulsa Doom

Consider, specifically, that Fire Protection is not a field that needs to advance a great deal in order to achieve maximum success in the future, as opposed to medicine. There is absolutely nothing better than free enterprise at advancing technique and technology, and if these "People" of yours take control over medicine, the future will suffer dearly.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 09:05 PM

I find it interesting that the AMA has endorsed the main House Health Care reform bill.

FDR was interested in reforming health care but didn't because the AMA made it clear that they would oppose it.

Harry Truman pushed strongly for the passage of National Health Insurance bill; the AMA stopped it.

Dwight Eisenhower pushed for passage of a Reinsurance bill - which would've subsidized the insurance industry, in order for them to take on clients with pre-existing conditions. The AMA stopped that in its tracks too.

In 1965, the AMA proposed a bill which would've been their version of Social Security. The bill was rejected, and AMA members were barred from the Congressional hearings, due to AMA members' unruly behavior at them.

So I was amazed when the AMA endorsed the house bill. The times, they are a' changin' (I hope).

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:07 PM

We the People? A lot of people are idiots, but the founding fathers weren't. Besides, "People have no grasp of what they do." --Thulsa Doom

Consider, specifically, that Fire Protection is not a field that needs to advance a great deal in order to achieve maximum success in the future, as opposed to medicine. There is absolutely nothing better than free enterprise at advancing technique and technology, and if these "People" of yours take control over medicine, the future will suffer dearly.

Ah, the ever present reality that new thought and innovation, nor accurate displays of logic, does not come from the masses, but rather, the few. This is further compounded on by the fact that those same few usually make for shitty leaders and have difficulty convincing the (illogical) masses.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 09:09 PM

You should have let it rest before you started down this silly path. The whole statement was the joke, and "The CIA?" was the punchline.
Sure thing. I'll bet it was really funny, too.

Bam! Indeed.

You realize you are arguing a case against people who can't even come up with accurate facts for gawdssakes, right? [ I like to call those lies .. just for accuracy's sake.]

This is the way it's done over here, Dekard. See? Told you so. You can't even have debate or discussion. Their way or no way. We can all drop dead and the nice little christian people don't give a rat's ass. Totally true.
I like to entertain the notion that these people can someday wake the fuck up from their little worlds. Keeps me sane. :)

Well, yea, healthcare is a service. You pay for it, you get a higher quality/longer life.
Ok, so you've sufficiently nitpicked the example. Now address the underlying point. Do you know what it is?

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:12 PM

Ok, so you've sufficiently nitpicked the example. Now address the underlying point. Do you know what it is?

Addressing the underlying point is irrelevant and unnecessary when the system is flawed. Bring about an underlying point, or examples for your first, which make the underlying point worth addressing (it already has been several times, in fact. Contrary to what may be growing popular belief, I'm not Technical's echo).

C.J.Woolf

18 Aug 2009, 09:13 PM

The New Deal prolonged the suffering for millions of people. Good thing we had millions of Germans and Japanese to blow up to get our economy going. <_<

Even an anti-republican like me is opposed to another New Deal.
I'd ask for a cite, but I'm pretty lazy myself so that would be hypocrisy. So let's just say I disagree.

Well, yea, healthcare is a service. You pay for it, you get a higher quality/longer life.
How... Dickensian.

Aside: Newt Gingrich is a name Dickens would have made up.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 09:17 PM

The New Deal prolonged the suffering for millions of people. Good thing we had millions of Germans and Japanese to blow up to get our economy going

This viewpoint has gradually become more and more widely accepted as irrefutable fact by revisionists on the right. Its true that some historians and economists share this view, but it should be pointed out that they are in the minority:

Prolonged/worsened the Depression

According to Gene Smiley, writing on the Web site of Liberty Fund, "a number of economists" believe the New Deal delayed economic recovery. A 1995 survey of economic historians asked whether "Taken as a whole, government policies of the New Deal served to lengthen and deepen the Great Depression." Of those in economics departments 27% agreed, 22% agreed 'with provisos' (what provisos the survey does not state) and 51% disagreed. Of those in history departments, only 27% agreed and 73% disagreed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:17 PM

I'd ask for a cite, but I'm pretty lazy myself so that would be hypocrisy. So let's just say I disagree.

I'm feeling generous:

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

America's Great Depression (5th Edition), Murray N. Rothbard

How... Dickensian.

Reality is very Dickensian.

Aside: Newt Gingrich is a name Dickens would have made up.

I lol'd. It's true.

This misconception has gradually become more and more wide accepted by revisionists on the right. Its true that some historians and economists share this view, but it should be pointed out that they are in the minority:

It's more accepted by the libertarians (the up?) than the right. And regarding the quote, the same masses who are taught by the government's education system support the government's version of history? Surprise? Also, once again:

Ah, the ever present reality that new thought and innovation, nor accurate displays of logic, does not come from the masses, but rather, the few. This is further compounded on by the fact that those same few usually make for shitty leaders and have difficulty convincing the (illogical) masses.

That 22-27% is actually a rather significant number, much higher than I would have expected. Hopefully, that's a sign the Times Are a Changin'..

C.J.Woolf

18 Aug 2009, 09:20 PM

We the People? A lot of people are idiots, but the founding fathers weren't. Besides, "People have no grasp of what they do." --Thulsa Doom
The [American] People scare the shit out of me too, but they get to vote (for now). It's all about choosing a ruling elite in the end, and sometimes they get it right. I'm guessing you'd say the same thing. And we'd be talking about different ruling elites. :grin:

There is absolutely nothing better than free enterprise at advancing technique and technology...
Free enterprise didn't go to the Moon or build the atomic bomb. I think you confuse the activity with the source of funding. There is brilliance in both the private and public sectors.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 09:21 PM

Addressing the underlying point is irrelevant and unnecessary when the system is flawed. Bring about an underlying point, or examples for your first, which make the underlying point worth addressing (it already has been several times, in fact. Contrary to what may be growing popular belief, I'm not Technical's echo).
I asked you if you knew the point I was making, and you gave me evasions. Presumably it's as I expected, and you went straight into nitpicking instead of responding to what I was trying to communicate. But I will be happy to be proved wrong. Btw, this is important, as the point in question underlies the philosophy supporting socialised/government supported health-care, which represents your opposition in this debate.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:24 PM

Free enterprise didn't ... build the atomic bomb.

Or nuke hundreds of thousands of people.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:26 PM

I asked you if you knew the point I was making, and you gave me evasions. Presumably it's as I expected, and you went straight into nitpicking instead of responding to what I was trying to communicate. But I will be happy to be proved wrong. Btw, this is important, as the point in question underlies the philosophy supporting socialised/government supported health-care, which represents your opposition in this debate.

The devil is in the details, as they say (all the more true for us N's, eh?).

As I said, make it worth addressing and I'll be glad to. (To clarify: Quit obfuscating with subjectivisms and simply state what you believe)

C.J.Woolf

18 Aug 2009, 09:26 PM

Or nuke hundreds of thousands of people.
Of course not. The government rather insists on a monopoly on the means of mass destruction. :grin:

Now back to the topic.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 09:26 PM

It's more accepted by the libertarians (the up?) than the right. And regarding the quote, the same masses who are taught by the government's education system support the government's version of history? Surprise? Also, once again:

Nice try but no dice.

Those surveyed were presumably all PhDs. Other than the military academies, the federal government doesn't run any universities.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:29 PM

Nice try but no dice.

Those surveyed were presumably all PhDs. Other than the military academies, the federal government doesn't run any universities.

A doctorate is more a symbol of dedication than of intelligence. As I've stated before, the quip about the greater intelligence of the minority applies to the products of education as well.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:30 PM

I have, fairly explicitly I think. Try harder. I know, that means rereading and that's a lot of effort. Suck it up.

Once again, Technical has already quite plainly addressed your point, and I see no need to be his echo.

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 09:36 PM

Once again, Technical has already quite plainly addressed your point, and I see no need to be his echo.
Which of his arguments convinced you? The one where the monopolised health care industry is currently producing the best product at the best price? Or the one where 1 in a million can't pay for health care? Or the one where it's a "relatively small problem"? Or maybe it was the sheer combined volume of these arguments, or maybe the lack of a single concession of a point? :p

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:44 PM

Which of his arguments convinced you? The one where the monopolised health care industry is currently producing the best product at the best price? Or the one where 1 in a million can't pay for health care? Or the one where it's a "relatively small problem"? Or maybe it was the sheer combined volume of these arguments, or maybe the lack of a single concession of a point? :p

I see there is a vast difference in reading comprehension between the two of us (without asserting value to which is accurate. However, I'm somewhat inclined to believe my interpretations of Technical's posts are more accurate).

Let me make quite clear my position on this tangent: I'm here to examine your intelligence, not reaffirm it. If you believe your position is worthy of restatement and/or a second discussion, then by all means, post it yourself. I will then decide, based on the points you make, if it is of value to me to address said points or not. Given that this has generally been the case with your posts, I suspect it is worthy of readdress; however, if it is not of sufficient value for you to restate yourself, it is certainly not of value for me to readdress.

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 09:45 PM

The [American] People scare the shit out of me too, but they get to vote (for now). It's all about choosing a ruling elite in the end, and sometimes they get it right. I'm guessing you'd say the same thing. And we'd be talking about different ruling elites. :grin:
I agree, in a way, in as much as I prefer economic accountability to no accountability. I'm sure you can figure out what I mean by that, so I don't have to write an essay. Hate essays.

Free enterprise didn't go to the Moon or build the atomic bomb. I think you confuse the activity with the source of funding. There is brilliance in both the private and public sectors.
But it did, Joe, it did. Indirectly, again: The incredible mass of the U.S. economy funded the space race and the Cold War quite easily*, but these pursuits destroyed the Soviet Union! It's all economics.

*Things which, at that point in history, were necessarily government operations, unlike medicine.

Once again, Technical has already quite plainly addressed your point, and I see no need to be his echo.
Strangely enough, I'd rather not be my own echo either. Quite tiring! Hi, Deckard.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 09:46 PM

A doctorate is more a symbol of dedication than of intelligence. As I've stated before, the quip about the greater intelligence of the minority applies to the products of education as well.

You claimed that the New Deal prolonged the depression; I pointed out that was the minority view, as established by a survey of historians and economists.

You then discounted their opinions, as being overly influenced by public educations; I pointed out that they received their doctorates through private institutions.

Then you implied that it does not take intelligence to earn a doctorate, merely years of study.

If you so assiduously discount academia, where do you get your perception that the New Deal prolonged the depression? Do you have any data to back that theory up?

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:48 PM

You claimed that the New Deal prolonged the depression; I pointed out that was the minority view, as established by a survey of historians and economists.

You then discounted their opinions, as being overly influenced by public educations; I pointed out that they received their doctorates through private institutions.

Then you implied that it does not take intelligence to earn a doctorate, merely years of study.

If you so assiduously discount academia, where do you get your perception that the New Deal prolonged the depression? Do you have any data to back that theory up?

You do realize that many of them went through the public education system (which in large part acts as a filter for what makes it to the private education system of universities), right?

My point is that the smallest, most intelligent minority is often the most logically correct, particularly when presenting theories of increasing complexity. It's not a critique of academia itself; as I said, academia is a measure of dedication (one of which takes at least some modicum of intelligence).

I already posted material (a full blown book in PDF format) in regards to data and analysis of such regarding the New Deal. Check a couple pages back.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 09:53 PM

Strangely enough, I'd rather not be my own echo either. Quite tiring! Hi, Deckard.

If you start hearing a high pitched whine, turn down the gain; it's a feedback loop.

30footsmurf

18 Aug 2009, 09:59 PM

There is a good segment on Democracy now today about this very issue. I found it rather interesting. It talks about it 33 minutes in.

http://www.democracynow.org/

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 10:01 PM

You do realize that many of them went through the public education system (which in large part acts as a filter for what makes it to the private education system of universities), right?

My point is that the smallest, most intelligent minority is often the most logically correct, particularly when presenting theories of increasing complexity. It's not a critique of academia itself; as I said, academia is a measure of dedication (one of which takes at least some modicum of intelligence).

You have no idea what percentage of them may have gone to private school. And the vast majority of their studies of history and economics would've occurred at the university level - you do realize that, right?

So your opinion is that the minority view is often correct. That may be true in many cases in regards to the general masses, but I submit that it is faulty reasoning when applied to groups comprised of the highly educated, especially those who base their viewpoints on the study of data.

After all, that would mean that you side with those who believe that the earth is flat, that the Holocaust never happened, or that nicotine doesn't cause cancer.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 10:03 PM

You have no idea what percentage of them may have gone to private school. And the vast majority of their studies of history and economics would've occurred at the university level - you do realize that, right?

So your opinion is that the minority view is often correct. That may be true in many cases in regards to the general masses, but I submit that it is faulty reasoning when applied to groups comprised of the highly educated, especially those who base their viewpoints on the study of data.

After all, that would mean that you side with those who believe that the earth is flat, that the Holocaust never happened, or that nicotine doesn't cause cancer.

I said many. I did not apply a specific percentage, nor did I even suggest minority or majority.

The original propositions of the opposite of all those ideals (that is, the earth is round, the Holocaust happened [of course, information on that one quickly spread] and nicotine causes cancer) was by the minority. The ones you state certainly did not come from the most intelligent minority (however, their opposites did).

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 10:08 PM

I see there is a vast difference in reading comprehension between the two of us (without asserting value to which is accurate. However, I'm somewhat inclined to believe my interpretations of Technical's posts are more accurate).
Sometimes I miss things, it's true. However, your previous claim of my lack of reading comprehension related to tech's argument about monopolised markets being ok if they're producing best product at best price. And my response was that his point was merely hypothetical, because it is not evident that the current market is doing this. If this wasn't previously clear, then perhaps it isn't my reading comprehension that's at fault. Nevertheless, I am happy to be proven otherwise. And I'm still waiting on a response to it, other than that I'm appealing to authority. The fact is that there is this massive movement for healthcare reform, and in light of this it seems quite a stretch to suggest that the current system is producing the best product/price.

Let me make quite clear my position on this tangent: I'm here to examine your intelligence, not reaffirm it. If you believe your position is worthy of restatement and/or a second discussion, then by all means, post it yourself. I will then decide, based on the points you make, if it is of value to me to address said points or not. Given that this has generally been the case with your posts, I suspect it is worthy of readdress; however, if it is not of sufficient value for you to restate yourself, it is certainly not of value for me to readdress.
Ok, I will restate. And by that I mean quote myself:

"I think all those aspects of free enterprise are great and all. The main point of this debate, which perhaps has been lost on you, is that someone shouldn't have to choose between paying off a mortgage, and paying for cancer treatment, and that money going towards some CEO's yacht their basic needs and interests compromised/unmet because those needs are competing with the system's motivation of profit. Free enterprise, no problem, except when it competes with the interests of the vast majority of the population."

If you start hearing a high pitched whine, turn down the gain; it's a feedback loop.
You just elegantly summed up the conservative far right. :grin:

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 10:08 PM

Haha, leave it to an INTP forum for a thread titled "True Stories of Socialized Medicine" to have very few real life stories and a whole lot of speculation, theorizing, and intellectual debate.

C.J.Woolf

18 Aug 2009, 10:10 PM

Haha, leave it to an INTP forum for a thread titled "True Stories of Socialized Medicine" to have very few real life stories and a whole lot of speculation, theorizing, and intellectual debate.
Funny you should mention that. The OP specifically asked that we not do that, and I intend to split the thread when I have some more time.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 10:12 PM

The fact is that there is this massive movement for healthcare reform, and in light of this it seems quite a stretch to suggest that the current system is producing the best product/price.

I agree with both of those, and disagree with the conclusions reached and solutions proposed by the majority.

Ok, I will restate. And by that I mean quote myself:

"I think all those aspects of free enterprise are great and all. The main point of this debate, which perhaps has been lost on you, is that someone shouldn't have to choose between paying off a mortgage, and paying for cancer treatment, and that money going towards some CEO's yacht their basic needs and interests compromised/unmet because those needs are competing with the system's motivation of profit. Free enterprise, no problem, except when it competes with the interests of the vast majority of the population."

And I will counter that the money spent on the yacht object is money going towards the laborers who built the yacht object and its various parts, the innovators who designed or invented such things, and the entrepreneurs who made the initial investment of capital and successfully sold their product, thus helping all involved to meet their basic needs and, in the case of the successful (italics important) inventors and entrepreneurs, further innovate.

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 10:13 PM

Funny you should mention that. The OP specifically asked that we not do that, and I intend to split the thread when I have some more time.
Could you please add "Don't disagree with me." to the OP of every thread I've started, and split out such occurences?

No, I'm not serious, but you can if you want.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 10:17 PM

Funny you should mention that. The OP specifically asked that we not do that, and I intend to split the thread when I have some more time.

That's what I'd call an exercise in futility. Expecting otherwise is counter to the nature of the inhabitants of this forum, and indeed, to remove or artificially disperse the product of that nature is to reduce the quality of the study of said inhabitants (and their nature). It's also counter to the natural flow of conversation here, and could in fact be more negative (e.g., the thread dies altogether) than positive (e.g., the occasional example is indeed produced among the tangential discussions).

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 10:18 PM

I agree with both of those, and disagree with the conclusions reached and solutions proposed by the majority.
Ok, no probs. I had the impression you were agreeing with tech on this. I suppose the question then is whether it's an improvement over the current system.

And I will counter that the money spent on the yacht object is money going towards the laborers who built the yacht object and its various parts, the innovators who designed or invented such things, and the entrepreneurs who made the initial investment of capital and successfully sold their product, thus helping all involved to meet their basic needs and, in the case of the successful (italics important) inventors and entrepreneurs, further innovate.
I suppose this argument might hold water if you had a health care system that worked, and if there wasn't this evident massive growing divide between the poor and the super-rich elite.

Technical

18 Aug 2009, 10:22 PM

That's what I'd call an exercise in futility. Expecting otherwise is counter to the nature of the inhabitants of this forum, and indeed, to remove or artificially disperse the product of that nature is to reduce the quality of the study of said inhabitants (and their nature). It's also counter to the natural flow of conversation here, and could in fact be more negative (e.g., the thread dies altogether) than positive (e.g., the occasional example is indeed produced among the tangential discussions).
Insanely appropriate for the conversation which is actually taking place! LOL META

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 10:23 PM

I said many. I did not apply a specific percentage, nor did I even suggest minority or majority.

The original propositions of the opposite of all those ideals (that is, the earth is round, the Holocaust happened [of course, information on that one quickly spread] and nicotine causes cancer) was by the minority. The ones you state certainly did not come from the most intelligent minority (however, their opposites did).

I'm still waiting for you to back up your statement that the New Deal prolonged the depression.

You've offered absolutely no data to back that up, you've merely used evasive techniques to discount the opposing view, which is held by most historians and economists.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 10:25 PM

I suppose this argument might hold water if you had a health care system that worked, and if there wasn't this evident massive growing divide between the poor and the super-rich elite.

Indeed. As I said, I agree that there is a problem -- it's the conclusions/solutions I disagree with. Keep in mind that the US spends higher per capita, in some cases much more so, on medical than many of the more successful European countries with 'socialized', and indeed also regulates more. My proposed solution would involve deregulation and a reduction in the bureaucracy, not more regulation (and thus more bureaucracy).

Deckard

18 Aug 2009, 10:27 PM

Indeed. As I said, I agree that there is a problem -- it's the conclusions/solutions I disagree with. Keep in mind that the US spends higher per capita, in some cases much more so, on medical than many of the more successful European countries with 'socialized', and indeed also regulates more. My proposed solution would involve deregulation and a reduction in the bureaucracy, not more regulation (and thus more bureaucracy).
God damn it, it's just not the same. I want Technical back. :cry:

Edit: However, props for being able to say "I agree", even if only partially, and for proposing a solution.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 10:28 PM

God damn it, it's just not the same. I want Technical back. :cry:

:popcorn:

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 10:30 PM

I'm still waiting for you to back up your statement that the New Deal prolonged the depression.

You've offered absolutely no data to back that up, you've merely used evasive techniques to discount the opposing view, which is held by most historians and economists.

Since you're apparently so radically opposed to using the search feature or looking back a couple of pages to find what's already been posted, despite my encouraging for you to do so:

This was in response to C.J., page 12:

http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf

America's Great Depression (5th Edition), Murray N. Rothbard

This was in response to you upon your original request, page 14:

I already posted material (a full blown book in PDF format) in regards to data and analysis of such regarding the New Deal. Check a couple pages back.

Also, are you suggesting that I should agree because a majority does so?

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 10:57 PM

Since you're apparently so radically opposed to using the search feature or looking back a couple of pages to find what's already been posted, despite my encouraging for you to do so:

Thank you for your post. However, don't you think its a bit unreasonable to expect me to wade through 339 pages to find the information that would support your claim?

Rothbard is esteemed by many, but his viewpoint concerning the New Deal is based more on his his ideological opposition of any government intervention than on economic facts.

For instance, here's a chart of the GDP during the years of the Great Depression:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.PNG

The New Deal began in 1933. As you can see, except for a dip in 1938, the GDP rose steadily from that point onward.

Unapplied Knowledge

18 Aug 2009, 11:24 PM

Thank you for your post. However, don't you think its a bit unreasonable to expect me to wade through 339 pages to find the information that would support your claim?

Rothbard is esteemed by many, but his viewpoint concerning the New Deal is based more on his his ideological opposition of any government intervention than on economic facts.

I expect you to read the article to grasp the entirety of the framework, and in addition, the ABCT (Austrian Business Cycle Theory) by Mises if you desire a greater understanding of the viewpoint. The economy is not simple by any means; I would be skeptical of anything that addressed the entirety of the Great Depression era in a small article.

Furthermore, using someone's position on a particular subject as a grounds of rejection of a theory from said person is a logical fallacy. Do you have a detailed refutation to present?

For instance, here's a chart of the GDP during the years of the Great Depression:

http://www.housingbubblebust.com/GDP/Depression.PNG

The New Deal began in 1933. As you can see, except for a dip in 1938, the GDP rose steadily from that point onward.

Indeed. Do you care to explain what that means and how it relates to the above book and its theory? Will you address the points it makes about such? Have you examined the books sourcing on economic data? Furthermore, what do you consider 'economic fact'?

Edit: If we are to discuss this in detail, it's probably worth of its own topic. If you'd prefer not to do so, I think we're better off for the sake of this thread to pass over it vaguely.

80 page GIANT

18 Aug 2009, 11:54 PM

Edit: If we are to discuss this in detail, it's probably worth of its own topic. If you'd prefer not to do so, I think we're better off for the sake of this thread to pass over it vaguely.

The chart proves one thing...that I'm right, and you're wrong.

But lets save it for another time. You obviously don't put much stock in anything as irrefutably factual as raw numbers, and to further hijack this thread with a string of non-ending evasive posts would be a disservice to the OP.

You are the type that will never acknowledge when you've been proven wrong, so therefore it would be a pointless waste of time to continue to beat you over the head with a dead horse.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 12:10 AM

The chart proves one thing...that I'm right, and you're wrong.

You've provided no clarification on what the chart proves right or wrong, how it does so, or why. You've given it no specific function other than saying the data exists, which I agree with. Your usage of said data (or rather, the lack thereof) is an allegory to my username.

But lets save it for another time. You obviously don't put much stock in anything as irrefutably factual as raw numbers

I'm a-okay with numbers, but they're just that.. numbers.. if you don't apply them to a framework. You have presented numbers. Look, I'll present some numbers, too: 20430193925, 2120039, 5050923. Now describe their reference and application with that limited data set.

to further hijack this thread with a string of non-ending evasive posts baseless accusations and strawmen would be a disservice to the OP.

I agree.

You are the type that will never acknowledge when you've been proven wrong

More excellent use of the forum search tool.

80 page GIANT

19 Aug 2009, 12:31 AM

I'm going to ty to make this as simple as possible for you - the framework for this chart is how the Gross National Product (the leading economic indicator used in the USA) was affected by the implementation of the New Deal.

Your claim that the depression was prolonged by the New Deal is not supported AT ALL by the data. Instead you refer to a 339 page book of ideology without even so much as citing a page number, as though that's some sort of 'proof'...I've got news for you... its not proof. You make a weak argument, and waving a book around, without even referring to a specific passage in it, does not account for anything.

Rather than acknowledging facts that are staring you in the face you resort to employing yet more weasely, evasive techniques.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 12:36 AM

I'm going to ty to make this as simple as possible for you - the framework for this chart is how the Gross National Product (the leading economic indicator used in the USA) was affected by the implementation of the New Deal.

No, that chart is simply the level of the GNP during the Great Depression era. It does not give a 'how' or 'why' for anything, and it most definitely does not say whether the depression was lengthened, shortened, or left unchanged by the policies (or lack thereof) at the time. It is simply historical data.

The book in question addresses that, but not only that, the underlying the factors, the policy--the whole of the Great Depression, far too complex a subject to say "oh, look at this chart." The chart on its only does absolutely nothing.

Your argument, sir, is baseless. We both agree on the data, but you fail to realize that the data on its own is nothing but a record.

80 page GIANT

19 Aug 2009, 12:43 AM

Your argument, sir, is baseless. We both agree on the data, but you fail to realize that the data on its own is nothing but a record.

Yeah, its a record of the economy improving once the New Deal was implemented. Its a record of the gross national product surpassing the level it had been in 1929, well before the US involvement in WWII.

You can argue that the economy improved due to other factors, but you haven't. As a matter of fact, you haven't offered one single piece of data to back up anything you've said, other than referring to 339 pages of ideology.

You claim my argument is baseless, yet you haven't actually shown it to be wrong in any detail or on any level. I call BS.

That's it for me tonight. I've got better things to do. Apologies to the OP for sidetracking the thread (even though we agreed not to...I guess we're both stubborn. I just refuse to be BS'ed).

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 12:54 AM

Yeah, its a record of the economy improving once the New Deal was implemented. Its a record of the gross national product surpassing the level it had been in 1929, well before the US involvement in WWII.

It's a record of GNP. It shows when the New Deal was implemented. It shows when the depression started. It does not show why the depression started, it does not show what effect the New Deal had, whether it was positive, negative, or neutral. It shows nothing other than the dataset for GNP and a correlation with the implementation of the New Deal. Correlation != causation.

I don't need to write a long article on the Great Depression and New Deal. An economist with whom I agree has already done so. I gave you the link. I don't require or even expect you to read it, but I do find your rejection of the material within and my own statements based on nothing but a dataset with which I and the author of the book agree to be quite amusing. Furthermore, I find your ad hominems entirely irrelevant and useless as to the purposes of the debate.

Your argument is akin to:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/piratesarecool4.gif

Correlation, no causation.

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 06:43 AM

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 06:53 AM

I'm still astonished there are people out there who think medical assistance should be a priviledge and not available to everyone, no matter what your age, income and citizenship status.

It's actually a demonization of the poor, ultimately. Because if you cannot afford healthcare the logic is that you're doing something wrong and do not deserve to be cured; neither does your family.

agree (parts in bold altered to more closely match my thoughts.)

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 07:02 AM

A scumbag by any other name is still a scumbag.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:04 AM

I'm still astonished there are scumbags out there who think medical assistance should be a priviledge and not a basic right, no matter what your age, income and citizenship status.

It's actually a demonization of the poor, ultimately. Because if you cannot afford healthcare the logic is that you're doing something wrong and do not deserve to be cured; neither does your family.

This is the core of right-wing thinking, which attaches human value to the capacity to earn money. It's despicable.

Paint me a scumbag then, I guess. Unless you count voluntary charity. Why does it seem like that's always forgotten in these discussions? If they aren't getting from the state, and aren't able to afford private, then obviously they aren't getting it! Oh, the horror, help us government!

I helped a guy get a new liver. That was pretty cool. Where are my tax dollars going, again? Oh, right, a percentage of it went to an unfinished bridge to the middle of nowhere in Alaska. That's odd, all of the money I gave through charity went to that guy's transplant..

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 07:08 AM

A scumbag by any other name is still a scumbag.

Some suffer with poverty of the coffers, some with poverty of the cranium, some with poverty of the conscience. Let's not discriminate...

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:11 AM

In an odd way, I find the demonization of those who prefer voluntary giving over the inefficiencies of wasteful government bureaucracies (and the injustices of theft via taxes) enjoyable..

I have no explanation for that.

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 07:12 AM

Paint me a scumbag then, I guess. Unless you count voluntary charity. Why does it seem like that's always forgotten in these discussions? If they aren't getting from the state, and aren't able to afford private, then obviously they aren't getting it! Oh, the horror, help us government!

I helped a guy get a new liver. That was pretty cool. Where are my tax dollars going, again? Oh, right, a percentage of it went to an unfinished bridge to the middle of nowhere in Alaska. That's odd, all of the money I gave through charity went to that guy's transplant..

ROFL, you have got to be shitting me. Now the health of the poor should be up to the whims of the guilt-ridden middle class.

Everyone deserves to live with dignity and not have their health, and that of their children, be at the mercy of random acts of kindness. We're talking about human beings here, not stray dogs on the street.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:18 AM

ROFL, you have got to be shitting me. Now the health of the poor should be up to the whims of the guilt-ridden middle class. The poor can give to charity too, you know. I did relief work when I was poor as shit. Oddly enough, it made me feel a lot better about myself. (I was unemployed, but refused to take unemployment, because I wasn't paying taxes. If I found myself unemployed now, because I have paid taxes, I would take unemployment).

Though.. isn't that what you say? The health of the poor should be up to the middle (and upper) class? The only difference is I think it should be given voluntarily and you think it should be taken by force...

Everyone deserves to live with dignity and not have their health, and that of their children, be at the mercy of random acts of kindness.

Why?

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 07:20 AM

Everyone deserves to live with dignity and not have their health, and that of their children, be at the mercy of random acts of kindness. We're talking about human beings here, not stray dogs on the street.

How far down the rabbit hole are you willing to go? There are alot of people in the world who suffer. Proximity and like-mindedness are not altruistic criterea for limited the distribution of these resources. Such a limitation is akin to one with less radius, such as limited wealth to a family or individual.

I agree with the idea that we should have government (tax) funded healthcare, but let's not kid ourselves. There are some "stray dogs" out there.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:23 AM

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 07:28 AM

Though.. isn't that what you say? The health of the poor should be up to the middle (and upper) class? The only difference is I think it should be given voluntarily and you think it should be taken by force...

No, it is not what I say. Health care should be an institution, an obligation of the government towards its citizens, and not dependent on Unapplied Knowledge feeling kind one day.

If you have a problem with the government wasting your money you should see how many millions it wastes on companies who squander theirs though fraud, mismanagement, corruption and the fabulous enrichment of their executives, not to mention wars and other questionable pursuits.

To sum up, as an indignant tax payer you're missing the mark like a shit-faced blindman pissing into a can.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:31 AM

Health care should be an institution, an obligation of the government towards its citizens.

In other words, a (forced, in the case of those who do not want to participate) obligation of people towards other people.

If you have a problem with the government wasting your money you should see how many millions it wastes on companies who squander theirs though fraud, mismanagement, corruption and the fabulous enrichment of their executives, not to mention wars and other questionable pursuits.

Hey, I'm strongly against corporatism, too.

Just to make sure you don't miss it, because I'm really interested in your response..

Personally, I'd be quite fine with a government-based system including taxation and all that if charity was deducted from tax at a 1:1 ratio, without a maximum limit. Do you have any reason to take exception to that, Maddy?

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 07:38 AM

No, it is not what I say. Health care should be an institution, an obligation of the government towards its citizens, and not dependent on Unapplied Knowledge feeling kind one day.

If you have a problem with government wasting your money you should see how many millions it wastes on companies who squander theirs though fraud, mismanagement, corruption and the fabulous enrichment of their executives, not to mention wars and other questionable pursuits.

To sum up, as an indignant tax payer you're missing the mark like a shit-faced blindman pissing into a can.

You have all the selfishness and hatred of those at which you direct those feelings. We are all human, all bound by the laws of the universe, and all cursed with the boundaries of our upbringing. There is a social agreement, nothing more, which keeps you and I from being eaten alive by those who wish to possess what we possess. Let us remember that when attempting to persuade those who wish to keep what they have been taught is rightfully theirs. Tradition is a hard nut to crack.

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 07:42 AM

Personally, I'd be quite fine with a government-based system including taxation and all that if charity was deducted from tax at a 1:1 ratio, without a maximum limit. Do you have any reason to take exception to that, Maddy?

I can see it now, an AmericanIdolesque reality show: Donate to your favorte impovershed family by pressing their two digit code followed by the pound key!

*shudders*

This would happen, I assure you.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:43 AM

I can see it now, an AmericanIdolesque reality show: Donate to your favorte impovershed family by pressing their two digit code followed by the pound key!

*shudders*

I'm actually waiting for the day that pops up. It's not legally restricted in any way. It's bound to happen eventually..

Actually, isn't that basically what those guilt-trip infomercials already are? Except you only get 1 number to dial..

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 07:44 AM

In other words, a (forced, in the case of those who do not want to participate) obligation of people towards other people.
Well, it is the rich person's mindset to believe that as a member of society they have rights but no obligations. It only becomes pathetic when a non-rich person thinks the same, as they're being fucked by the rich anyway.

We should all have social obligations as well as rights, and you can call that institutionalized fraternity if you like.

Hey, I'm strongly against corporatism, too.

Just to make sure you don't miss it, because I'm really interested in your response..

No, I don't think charity should be deduced from taxes.

Taxes should be scientifically redistributed into society in accordance with a macro-plan, and there shouldn't be any holes in the system because certain individuals want to capriciously determine the destiny of their taxes on their own standards.

This doesn't even reflect the principles of bourgeois democracy, as government and elections exist so you can choose representatives who will enforce the plan you think is best for your money as a taxpayer. However, as a system that is designed to benefit the rich, it is the rich who are allowed to go against its own structure by getting these types of tax cuts. Just one more illustration of the fact that bourgeois economy is essentially anarchic, despite rhetoric to the contrary.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:48 AM

Well, it is the rich person's mindset to believe that as a member of society they have rights but no obligations. It only becomes pathetic when a non-rich person thinks the same, as they're being fucked by the rich anyway.

We should all have social obligations as well as rights, and you can call that institutionalized fraternity if you like.

No, I don't think charity should be deduced from taxes.

Taxes should be scientifically redistributed into society in accordance with a macro-plan, and there shouldn't be any holes in the system because certain individuals want to capriciously determine the destiny of their taxes on their own standards.

This doesn't even reflect the principles of bourgeois democracy, as government and elections exist so you can choose representatives who will enforce the plan you think is best for your money as a taxpayer. However, as a system that is designed to benefit the rich, it is the rich who are allowed to go against its own structure by getting these types of tax cuts. Just one more illustration of the fact that bourgeois economy is essentially anarchic, despite rhetoric to the contrary.

You know, just stepping back and looking at this at a whole, this all sounds rather demented. I had a hard time placing my finger on it until:

Taxes should be scientifically redistributed into society in accordance with a macro-plan

Just who in the fuck makes the plan and who gets to make these decisions? And furthermore, why should I agree with them or you?

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 07:50 AM

why should I agree with them or you?

People often forget you gotta cup the balls to get him to blow his load. It's only fair.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:51 AM

People often forget you gotta cup the balls to get him to blow his load. It's only fair.

Thanks a lot, asshole. I just choked on my fuckin OJ.

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 07:51 AM

Just who in the fuck makes the plan and who gets to make these decisions? And furthermore, why should I agree with them or you?

Wow, are you sure you aren't the demented one? Welcome to the world, buddy.

In case of doubt (=thought process) you can always make a revolution.

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 07:53 AM

Thanks a lot, asshole. I just choked on my fuckin OJ.

Serves you right you f**king Nazi.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:53 AM

Wow, are you sure you aren't the demented one? Welcome to the world, buddy.

In case of doubt (=thought process) you can always make a revolution.

That doesn't answer the question in any way. Who makes these decisions, who implements the plan, and why should I agree with them/you? Who/what gives them the initial authority to implement this? What makes you right?

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 07:55 AM

Serves you right you f**king Nazi.

If I were to ever make a post on INTJf, it would be to copy-paste the contents of this discussion as my first post and watch the reaction.

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 07:58 AM

If I were to ever make a post on INTJf, it would be to copy-paste the contents of this discussion as my first post and watch the reaction.

if only she had the personality to go with it, eh?

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 08:00 AM

if only she had the personality to go with it, eh?

Wait, who is "she"? The gal cupping my balls? The one choking on my OJ? The Nazi? I'm so confused.

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 08:00 AM

Wait, who is "she"? The gal cupping my balls? The one choking on my OJ? The Nazi? I'm so confused.

You will be, you will be.

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 08:01 AM

That doesn't answer the question in any way. Who makes these decisions, who implements the plan, and why should I agree with them/you? Who/what gives them the initial authority to implement this? What makes you right?

I just checked your age on your profile. You can start with the Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/) - and I'm not even joking.

bass_n_treble

19 Aug 2009, 08:01 AM

Paint me a scumbag then, I guess. Unless you count voluntary charity. Why does it seem like that's always forgotten in these discussions? If they aren't getting from the state, and aren't able to afford private, then obviously they aren't getting it! Oh, the horror, help us government!

I helped a guy get a new liver. That was pretty cool. Where are my tax dollars going, again? Oh, right, a percentage of it went to an unfinished bridge to the middle of nowhere in Alaska. That's odd, all of the money I gave through charity went to that guy's transplant..

You know, the whole point of charity is not expecting anything in return.

Yeah, maybe it's your cute word for paying taxes, blah blah blah. This argument isn't about some welfare food-stamp crack addict sucking the delicious teat of Uncle Sam, this is like OMFG I just cracked my head open on the pavement, oh shit I'm going to die and I don't have Aetna. Oh well, was he an organ donor?

I kind of feel sorry for you, actually.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 08:02 AM

Well, it is the rich person's mindset to believe that as a member of society they have rights but no obligations. It only becomes pathetic when a non-rich person thinks the same, as they're being fucked by the rich anyway.

I don't think I'm getting fucked over by the rich (though I often feel fucked over by the lazy). In fact, I'm pretty sure I've quite legally screwed the rich over more than once in my life.

We should all have social obligations as well as rights, and you can call that institutionalized fraternity if you like.

I seem to have missed over this. Again, why? Who are you to determine what and why?

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 08:03 AM

bass_n_treble

19 Aug 2009, 08:06 AM

Ooo, now it's an orgy.

Don't you have a crusty sock you can foreplay up? I'm getting pretty tired of your lame hormonal posts.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 08:09 AM

You know, the whole point of charity is not expecting anything in return.

Yeah, maybe it's your cute word for paying taxes, blah blah blah. This argument isn't about some welfare food-stamp crack addict sucking the delicious teat of Uncle Sam, this is like OMFG I just cracked my head open on the pavement, oh shit I'm going to die and I don't have Aetna. Oh well, was he an organ donor?

I'm not expecting anything in return for the charity. I'm just expecting not to be stolen from because I was a nice person. Though my objections to the government systems don't even stem from the thought that tax is theft, but rather, the natural inefficiency of government systems.

If I can go through a government system with, say, 30% efficiency (just pulling a number out of my ass here) because they have to pay wages, for the bureaucracy, systems, et cetera, via taxes, or I can go through a volunteer charity at 100% efficiency, I'd much prefer to go through the latter organization in my efforts to help the desperate. If there is to be a government system regarding taxation, then I see the government system as a fallback mechanism to make sure people give to charity, or whatever, and forcibly take from those who do not freely give their 'social obligation' or whatever into the public system. Under any such system, you're basically making charity a social obligation, so why not make the higher efficiency, volunteer-staffed charities the favored option? After all, a higher percentage of the money gets to where it needs to go...

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 08:10 AM

Okay everybody let's settle down.

Unapplied Knowledge, your questions kinda go beyond the thread topic and my motivation to explain at this point, since it's about the capitalist system itself in my opinion.

Jonnyboy, just, wtf.

bass_n_treble, let's dump this joint and go have a beer somewhere.

(cross-posted with Unapplied's last post)

:grin:

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 08:11 AM

Don't you have a crusty sock you can foreplay up? I'm getting pretty tired of your lame hormonal posts.

What I find most interesting is that my constructive posts are virtually ignored, while my attempts at humor are met with hostility. :p

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 08:14 AM

Unapplied Knowledge, your questions kinda go beyond the thread topic and my motivation to explain at this point, since it's about the capitalist system itself in my opinion.

Well, ultimately, it's an economic debate about US healthcare, and since your ideals/solutions involve a great deal of philosophy (and don't get me wrong, I believe economics and philosophy are intertwined), it's necessary to question the premises of your philosophy as to ascertain whether your methodology is a legitimate means to solving the issue of healthcare (and if so, whether it's efficient).

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 08:15 AM

Well, ultimately, it's an economic debate about US healthcare, and since your ideals/solutions involve a great deal of philosophy (and don't get me wrong, I believe economics and philosophy are intertwined), it's necessary to question the premises of your philosophy as to ascertain whether your methodology is a legitimate means to solving the issue of healthcare (and if so, whether it's efficient).

It's difficult do move beyond philosophy in the context of this forum. Such a move would require *shudders* considerable time and research to do correctly.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 08:19 AM

It's difficult do move beyond philosophy in the context of this forum. Such a move would require *shudders* considerable time and research to do correctly.

Well, at least it's a little more on topic than some of the previous tangents were! As for the current system, I'd just press the reset button and hope I don't get the cycling blue/grey screen.

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 08:21 AM

Well, at least it's a little more on topic than some of the previous tangents were! As for the current system, I'd just press the reset button and hope I don't get the cycling blue/grey screen.

Now you're starting to talk like I do.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 08:22 AM

Now you're starting to talk like I do.

I think I just found out why some INTPs become hermits.

bass_n_treble

19 Aug 2009, 08:23 AM

What I find most interesting is that my constructive posts are virtually ignored, while my attempts at humor are met with hostility. :p

Yup, it's all about you, isn't it?

It's not about you being misogynistic towards Madrigal or OMW, or anything.

Madrigal

19 Aug 2009, 08:26 AM

Yup, it's all about you, isn't it?

It's not about you being misogynistic towards Madrigal or OMW, or anything.

I just took those little pearls to the jonnyboy thread. :mellow:

Carry on with the healthcare...

Jonnyboy

19 Aug 2009, 08:26 AM

Yup, it's all about you, isn't it?

It's not about you being misogynistic towards Madrigal or OMW, or anything.

I do not have contempt for either. You brought this up, I did not. I treat everyone on this forum differently, but sex has no factor in how I come to choose how to interact with someone.

Zaij

19 Aug 2009, 11:50 AM

Unapplied Knowledge seems to be a supporter of tricke down theory, which has been proven incorrect.

C.J.Woolf

19 Aug 2009, 02:17 PM

Knock it off with the personal insults and address the other guy's (or commie's ;)) arguments, please.

Just who in the fuck makes the [macro-]plan and who gets to make these decisions?
Probably bureaucrats who are appointed by politicians who are elected by us, so indirectly you do get a say in those decisions.

An undercurrent in anti-government rhetoric is disillusionment with, or disdain for, democracy. It's interesting to me that those same people believe in a sort of economic democracy, where people can influence institutions by voting with their dollars, but not in political democracy where people can influence institutions by voting with their ballots. Of course, where it's one dollar, one vote, <10% of Americans rule the country, and those irresponsible poor people have no say at all. Is that the way you prefer it? The natural order, so to speak?

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 03:14 PM

Unapplied Knowledge seems to be a supporter of tricke down theory

Not at all. I'm not a supporter of supply-side economic policies.

Knock it off with the personal insults and address the other guy's (or commie's ;)) arguments, please.

Probably bureaucrats who are appointed by politicians who are elected by us, so indirectly you do get a say in those decisions.

An undercurrent in anti-government rhetoric is disillusionment with, or disdain for, democracy. It's interesting to me that those same people believe in a sort of economic democracy, where people can influence institutions by voting with their dollars, but not in political democracy where people can influence institutions by voting with their ballots. Of course, where it's one dollar, one vote, <10% of Americans rule the country, and those irresponsible poor people have no say at all. Is that the way you prefer it? The natural order, so to speak?

You're confusing democracy with a democratic republic ;)

It's not that I'm disillusioned with either form of democracy in particular, I'm jut not in favor of government in general. The less we can have, the better. Sure, freedom from government may not be a realistic objective, but that doesn't mean reducing the size of and influence of government as much as possible isn't a worthwhile goal.

But yea, I'm pretty much fine with economic democracy. People underestimate the value of the consumer. In regards to the bolded, that's pretty much the way things are now; in your reference to natural order, that is the natural tendency of things. I just prefer to maximize choice and freedom.

euterpenc

19 Aug 2009, 07:43 PM

No, it is not what I say. Health care should be an institution, an obligation of the government towards its citizens, and not dependent on Unapplied Knowledge feeling kind one day.

What else is it to depend on? Apparently you do not count on Unapplied Knowledge to make any significant donations. Perhaps for good reasons, one of which may be a skepticism about the charitableness of human beings. However, I personally feel like I can rely no more on the government than on Unapplied Knowledge. Those who run the government may be more selfish than UK and simply take my money and not give me healthcare (or not give me health-care whose value is equal to the money extracted for said purpose).

I personally loathe institutions in general. I also loathe when the government or those within it think they know what is best for me. They never have and never will. Apparently subjecting me to brainwashing, mind-rape, and utter disrespect is somehow in my best interest (or maybe that of "society'). I am referring to the consequences of being caught with weed, which is another issue itself. The point is, when a few powerful people think they know what is best for everyone, they are, more often than not, wrong. So few people cannot possibly understand the needs of so many others. It is a slap in the face for someone to take things that I have worked for and tell me that it's for my own good.

I still don't understand why people can't determine where their tax dollars go. If you want to support a health-care system, go for it. If you don't want to, you shouldn't be forced to. However, if you made no donation you would recieve no benefit either. It's your call, or should be anyway, in my opinion.

Perhaps that is just idealistic, but I feel cheated when my money is taken and put towards things that I either don't agree with or that do not benefit me or actually does harm me.

The government only owes its citizens what the citizens gave to it. The government is not obligated to give us health-care unless we paid for it. We have a right to receive back an equal or greater value for what our taxes have paid for. Not necessarily individually, but in ways that benefit everyone. Universal health care may benefit a lot of people, but there are going to be people who are paying for other people's health care.

My point is, essentially, that the government and its officials are not qualified to decide these things. Some evidence for this is the deficit. This was not accrued by a single president, but by the irresponsible spending of many politicians. From our huge debt it should be quite clear that the government cannot be trusted with our money. If universal healthcare is the goal, perhaps the citizens should organize their own way of taking care of it. The citizens are the ones who have stake in it anyway. The citizens care far more than the isolated bureaucrats in Washington, who see little direct effect for themselves in such matters, besides votes (for which health-care promises are often used as bribes).

Can't we take charge of our own fate? Why do we need the government to take care of us? Are we not capable ourselves? Perhaps not. If people were responsible adults they would not need to have a parental State to take care of them nearly so much. However, the trend seems to be toward a desire to be taken care of by the State, absolved of as much responsibility as possible, and to have an infantile life free from challenge and suffering.

C.J.Woolf

19 Aug 2009, 08:23 PM

Universal health care may benefit a lot of people, but there are going to be people who are paying for other people's health care.
In every rich country except the United States, they seem to be OK with that, or at least they put up with it. It makes me wonder if the debate over socialized healthcare played out the same way in other countries, or is this just American exceptionalism biting us in the ass.

Fun fact: The first national health insurance program was started in Germany under Otto von Bismarck. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Bismarck.27s_social_legislation)

„[...] the actual complaint of the worker is the insecurity of his existence; he is unsure if he will always have work, he is unsure if he will always be healthy and he can predict that he will reach old age and be unable to work. If he falls into poverty, and be that only through prolonged illness, he will find himself totally helpless being on his own, and society currently does not accept any responsibility towards him beyond the usual provisions for the poor, even if he has been working all the time ever so diligently and faithfully. The ordinary provisions for the poor, however, leaves a lot to be desired [...].“
Otto von Bismarck, 1884.

President Obama couldn't have put it better himself.

euterpenc

19 Aug 2009, 08:36 PM

In every rich country except the United States, they seem to be OK with that, or at least they put up with it. It makes me wonder if the debate over socialized healthcare played out the same way in other countries, or is this just American exceptionalism biting us in the ass.

Fun fact: The first national health insurance program was started in Germany under Otto von Bismarck. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_von_Bismarck#Bismarck.27s_social_legislation)

Otto von Bismarck, 1884.

President Obama couldn't have put it better himself.

Fair enough, but how does one determine who deserves it? Or, more precisely, who? Do people that are fat and unhealthy because they eat McDonald's and don't exercise deserving of my hard-earned money for the sake of their health? Absolutely not.

From what I've been hearing the Obama health-care plan sounds too universal to fit in with what Bismarck said. What I got from the quote you gave was the idea of a State sponsored health "safety net" for people who fall into bad times through a series of very unfortunate events. Providing every schmuck with healthcare who wants it isn't fair to the people paying for it. There will be a large percentage of people who will receive health-care who don't deserve it, and on another's dime. We see this with our present welfare system as well. There are too many people who exploit the system and essentially steal from the rich and give to themselves while doing minimal work. That is unfair and unjust, and it is not naturally occuring either, like natural disasters and such like.

Note: Obama could not have put it better himself, for the main reason that he puts it much worse.

bass_n_treble

19 Aug 2009, 10:54 PM

Do people that are fat and unhealthy because they eat McDonald's and don't exercise deserving of my hard-earned money for the sake of their health?
...
There will be a large percentage of people who will receive health-care who don't deserve it, and on another's dime. We see this with our present welfare system as well.

How exactly do you plan on determining this? Wouldn't this also put pressure on the diet industry and Monsanto Inc. to be honest with what is actually good for your body, so the bureaucrats can have a predetermined standard by which to measure? Should we make another bureau for this? Maybe a nice color-coded terror alert health diagram. Health aficionados are about as fickle about what is good for your body as Joe Lieberman is to any given political party. Why do you pay taxes at all? The right side of the spectrum always complains about where their taxes are going, how bureaucracies are taking over, yet they always want the government to tell you when you are not worthy of anything except to be shipped overseas as land mine bait because you didn't pull in a 6-figure salary last year. Why don't you just start cheating on your taxes then? Just admit it, you are driven by consumerism greed.

There are too many people who exploit the system and essentially steal from the rich and give to themselves while doing minimal work. That is unfair and unjust, and it is not naturally occuring either, like natural disasters and such like.

Right. Leave the exploitation to the rich, because they can afford the lawyers and the ability to change laws in their favor.

Why is egalitarianism so fucking difficult to understand?

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 11:08 PM

Why is egalitarianism so fucking difficult to understand?

Probably because it isn't recognizable in any state of nature, and indeed because of such arguably not ingrained into nature; as such, the product of nature we call a homo sapien has difficulty grasping such a concept. Whether that's a legitimate argument or not, egalitarianism will probably never become a truth until the entire species of homo sapiens is of one collective mind, a la the Borg.

bass_n_treble

19 Aug 2009, 11:18 PM

Probably because it isn't recognizable in any state of nature, and indeed because of such arguably not ingrained into nature; as such, the product of nature we call a homo sapien has difficulty grasping such a concept. Whether that's a legitimate argument or not, egalitarianism will probably never become a truth until the entire species of homo sapiens is of one collective mind, a la the Borg.

+1

What you speak of is the absolute of the concept. Of course, I just mean the ideal, which by its definition includes the fact that it is more of a standard to live by than a real attainable result.

I remember having a conversation about human nature with an INTJ friend of mine once about a decade ago in high school, and from that I took a statement I distinctly remember about the act of being human is to never be satisfied, to always fight, to improve and look for better ways of doing things. Even if we're "the best" at something in the world, that is a cheap (and probably false) excuse to be content and lackadaisical.

Any time there is an opportunity to approve, and you don't take it, it's almost like you become less human... just some vacant shell of a soul. Such a waste.

pangolin

19 Aug 2009, 11:34 PM

But they improve the standard of living and potential of all those around them with the wealth, and thanklessly.

That is exactly the opposite of what is true.

Unapplied Knowledge

19 Aug 2009, 11:44 PM

Any time there is an opportunity to approve, and you don't take it, it's almost like you become less human... just some vacant shell of a soul. Such a waste.

I'm assuming approve there is supposed to be improve? :banana:

bass_n_treble

19 Aug 2009, 11:50 PM

I'm assuming approve there is supposed to be improve? :banana:

Bah. Yes, your holiness, eh... mein führer, err... dude.

oxyjen

20 Aug 2009, 06:11 AM

Ah, but there is more than one way to be objective. What if We the People decide that health care should be treated as a public service, one that everyone should have? Like police and firefighters? One seldom hears discussion about the business models of the police and fire departments. Free-market solutions are okay as long as it is accepted that some people could be priced out of the market. Public services are based on the assumption that it is not okay for individuals to be denied police and fire protection and whatnot based on lack of ability to pay for it.

This. Exactly.

Why would we say that health care, whose potential consequences are literally life or death for people, is not necessary for government to provide when we see the above as a given right?

People arguing against a government supplied health care option on philosophical bases--are you lobbying for public libraries to close? Public education and vouchers to end?

Why?

Your quoted quote didn't show, but one answer was the Constitutional phrase "promote the general welfare." It's pretty obvious.

Technical

20 Aug 2009, 06:19 AM

oxyjen: Check out my posts, and Unoccupied Krackhouse's posts. I think that's his name...

oxyjen

20 Aug 2009, 06:35 AM

If I can go through a government system with, say, 30% efficiency (just pulling a number out of my ass here) because they have to pay wages, for the bureaucracy, systems, et cetera, via taxes, or I can go through a volunteer charity at 100% efficiency, I'd much prefer to go through the latter organization in my efforts to help the desperate. If there is to be a government system regarding taxation, then I see the government system as a fallback mechanism to make sure people give to charity, or whatever, and forcibly take from those who do not freely give their 'social obligation' or whatever into the public system. Under any such system, you're basically making charity a social obligation, so why not make the higher efficiency, volunteer-staffed charities the favored option? After all, a higher percentage of the money gets to where it needs to go...

I question you on the accuracy about the statement about efficiency. Administrative costs for government health care is actually less than private health care. And I don't know about you, but if my kid has cancer, do I really want to cross my fingers and hope that enough pancake suppers and cans in gas stations garner enough attention from charitable donors in this recession? Fuck no.

Volunteering and paying taxes aren't mutually exclusive. If the government starts providing aid to a certain cause or group of people, TRUST ME, they'll be causes enough to go around.

airjaw

20 Aug 2009, 06:47 AM

The debate can be summed up as such:

The US Healthcare System in its current form is bloated, expensive, and underperforming for the amount of money put in

Buncha people advocate moving to a universal healthcare system because other countries do it and their systems perform better than ours. These people aren't idiots and are generally well-read but not necessarily correct.

Buncha people advocate keeping the current system. These people are idiots or have something to gain by keeping the status quo.

Very few people advocate real solutions that aren't simply copied from some healthcare system in Europe. These people are economists and healthcare policy experts who have thoroughly studied the situation. Their voices are unfortunately drowned out.

The truth is that there is more than one solution. A regulated free-market system could work just as a single payer universal system can work. What is needed for both of these to work properly is for them to be implemented properly and for the citizens to understand what their responsibilities are. The US has the highest rates of obesity in the world. There needs to be some accountability for the lifestyles people choose and changes in attitude and behavior. Otherwise, there will be no system that can save healthcare in America because our HEALTH will be f*cked already as it is.

airjaw

20 Aug 2009, 06:52 AM

one last point: just because universal healthcare systems perform better than ours in the countries that have implemented it doesn't mean that the system would work in the US.

the US is the most diverse country in the world with a history of violence, overreliance on dangerous automobiles for transportation, millions of fast food restaurants and a culture built on overconsumption and gorging on food, meat, etc.
There is also the historical aspect of this country - lot of resisters who want to keep their freedom and who dont' want to pay for other people's health. Other countries are more unified in their desire to take care of one another.. the demographics in the US are simply too different.. its the sad truth but everyone wants to look out for themselves. This is the land of individuals and almost unlimited freedom. Even if there is a universal healthcare system implemented I bet 30% will oppose it even if the system works beautifully

euterpenc

20 Aug 2009, 07:15 PM

I question you on the accuracy about the statement about efficiency. Administrative costs for government health care is actually less than private health care. And I don't know about you, but if my kid has cancer, do I really want to cross my fingers and hope that enough pancake suppers and cans in gas stations garner enough attention from charitable donors in this recession? Fuck no.

Volunteering and paying taxes aren't mutually exclusive. If the government starts providing aid to a certain cause or group of people, TRUST ME, they'll be causes enough to go around.

I noticed that people that survive cancer all have one thing in common: a will to live. Specifically, their will to live is stronger than cancer, and so the cancer goes away or at least ceases to be terminal. Medical care can only go so far. On the same line, people who are depressed are more likely to die of illness than people who are not, namely because people who are depressed generally have less will to live, and so less of their energy is put towards self-preservation. Anyway...

euterpenc

20 Aug 2009, 07:40 PM

How exactly do you plan on determining this? Wouldn't this also put pressure on the diet industry and Monsanto Inc. to be honest with what is actually good for your body, so the bureaucrats can have a predetermined standard by which to measure? Should we make another bureau for this? Maybe a nice color-coded terror alert health diagram. Health aficionados are about as fickle about what is good for your body as Joe Lieberman is to any given political party. Why do you pay taxes at all? The right side of the spectrum always complains about where their taxes are going, how bureaucracies are taking over, yet they always want the government to tell you when you are not worthy of anything except to be shipped overseas as land mine bait because you didn't pull in a 6-figure salary last year. Why don't you just start cheating on your taxes then? Just admit it, you are driven by consumerism greed.

Right. Leave the exploitation to the rich, because they can afford the lawyers and the ability to change laws in their favor.

Why is egalitarianism so fucking difficult to understand?

Maybe I'm just fragile, but I feel violated when I look at my paycheck and see how much money I've lost that I'll never see again. It also hurts my feelings that people don't think I would contribute to the well-being of other people. Personally, I just have a hard time doing things when I feel forced to or backed into a corner. I often automatically resist. For instance, if I was about to give money towards universal healthcare, or some such, and then someone came barging in and took my money and demands I pay for it, I would want to decline my donation, simply for the fact that someone is trying forcibly to take it from me. It undermines my choice and that makes me feel like less of a human being. I am not being sarcastic or trying to be funny or clever, but that's how I really feel.

I don't think anyone should exploit anyone else, but the way it is now, and universal healthcare will result in the exploitation of someone; the difference is who will be exploited. Just because I don't think universal healthcare is the answer doesn't mean I think everything is a-okay.

On how to determine, I know my body better than anyone else, since I have to inhabit it everyday. What is a healthy balance for me I alone can decide (which is not to say others can't give me helpful input). I would hate for the government to determine whether or not I'm healthy, and I honestly think the BMI is kind of bogus. Either way, obesity isn't healthy and eating fast food on a regular basis is not healthy either, nor is a lack of exercise. Eating in reasonably healthy manner and exercising are simple steps just about everyone can take to be healthier, yet there are many who do not do this.

Egalitarianism is a concept entirely fabricated by the human mind with no correlative or root in the world, so naturally it is difficult to understand. It runs contrary to experience and seems to suggest measures be taken to make things the same, or similar enough to be considered "equal." People are different. In this simple statement is the reason why egalitarianism does not work. Until people are all very, very similar something like that sort of ideal will never be realized. Diversity is key to survival and to progress, so I don't think trying to make everyone equal is a worthwhile endeavor for anyone. Moreover, egalitarianism can be seen in our culture already, in its capitalist format. All one has to do to be recognized is buy the right things. Anyone can do this provided they have the money, which, to me, is rather immaterial. The dispute seems to be that there is a disparity in how much money people have, as if net worth were somehow indicative of a person's value. Things like universal healthcare just reveal how distorted both sides are, since everything revolves around money. Money, money, money.

Liberal and socialist ideals are just as BS as those on the other side of the fence, and what is really at stake is the distribution of material wealth. I think concern for money is what destroys our human relationships and makes us not care about others. We are bombarded on both sides about how important money is (even if it is indirect). What really brought me to realize this is during some town hall or something Obama was at where he said "This is no longer just a moral imperative, but it is a fiscal imperative." This statement indicated to me that Obama thinks money is more important than morals, which is ironic considering his rhetoric about helping the downtrodden. It really blew me away, hearing that. The president himself admits that it is all a matter of money. Right and wrong don't matter, caring about our fellow man doesn't matter, what matters is money: who has it, where it is, what it is being spent on, etc. "Fiscal Imperative" sounds like another definition of greed.

All I want to do is be allowed to help people of my own free will. Being forced to "help" by giving away my money devalues the act for me, and makes it meaningless. I am no longer trying to help my fellow human beings, but obeying the law. Universal health care and the like take away my freedom to help people, namely because they take away my ability to choose to help, or how to help, it precludes me from acting from heart. That's why I don't think universal healthcare will solve any of the real problems facing us.

Note: A lot of the people who preach about how the rich don't give enough and such like, don't give much themselves. For instance, the Obama's and their high bills for the sake of luxury. For wanting to improve the lot of the poor, they sure do live the high life.

"InsertNameHere"

20 Aug 2009, 09:02 PM

euterpenc

20 Aug 2009, 09:08 PM

... also the ability to have insurance and money to pay for their treatment whether by conventional medicine or unconventional methods...

Well, most of the people in the country are capable of work, so I don't see how that is a problem.

Note: I think part of what medical treatment can be so expensive is because doctor's have to cover their asses from overeager lawyers and their clients who seek to sure them, often for absurd reasons.

"InsertNameHere"

20 Aug 2009, 09:19 PM

I noticed that people that survive cancer all have one thing in common: a will to live. Specifically, their will to live is stronger than cancer, and so the cancer goes away or at least ceases to be terminal. Medical care can only go so far. On the same line, people who are depressed are more likely to die of illness than people who are not, namely because people who are depressed generally have less will to live, and so less of their energy is put towards self-preservation. Anyway...

Well, most of the people in the country are capable of work, so I don't see how that is a problem.

Note: I think part of what medical treatment can be so expensive is because doctor's have to cover their asses from overeager lawyers and their clients who seek to sure them, often for absurd reasons.

Working does not equate with having insurance coverage or being able to afford it if it is offered by your employer. And if you do have coverage, doesn't mean you can afford to cover your family.

I agree with your note but also there are too few doctors taking care of too many patients and because of that, making too many life threatening mistakes, which is a problem in its own right.

80 page GIANT

20 Aug 2009, 09:25 PM

Well, most of the people in the country are capable of work, so I don't see how that is a problem.

Note: I think part of what medical treatment can be so expensive is because doctor's have to cover their asses from overeager lawyers and their clients who seek to sure them, often for absurd reasons.

The unemployment rate is 9.4%, and a growing number of companies don't offer their employees insurance.

And in truth, medical malpractice insurance accounts for less than one half of one percent of health care costs:

“Finally, our research makes clear that medical malpractice claims and premiums have almost no impact on the cost of health care. Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of overall health care costs, and medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs...”

- from the report True Risk: Medical Liability, Malpractice Insurance and Health Care, from the Americans for Insurance Reform

http://www.centerjd.org/air/pr/090722.html

euterpenc

20 Aug 2009, 09:50 PM

The unemployment rate is 9.4%, and a growing number of companies don't offer their employees insurance.

And in truth, medical malpractice insurance accounts for less than one half of one percent of health care costs:

I see. So why is it so expensive?

Moreover, why is health insurance so important anyway? My parents and others in that age group that I know didn't have health insurance when they were my age (20s), and got by just fine. Also, once I am no longer allowed on my father's plan, I plan on not having health insurance, mostly because I rarely use it now, so it's not worth the investment. I'm healthy and cautious, so illness and accidents are kept to a minimum.

Though I wonder. If people can't afford health insurance now, how will the same people, with the same income (whatever that may be) be able to pay for health care from the government? Supposing government sponsored healthcare will be funded by tax dollars, everyone is still paying for healthcare. How does having the government run it make it more affordable?

This gets back to the original question I think: From an "insider" point of view, what makes health-care the way it is and how can the system be made more efficient? Perhaps I am too cynical, but having the citizens pay taxes for health-care seems like a far too easy and temporary fix. The problem seems pretty ingrained in the system, so I think much more will have to be done than change how it is funded.

Which brings up a problem I will stress once again: throwing money at things will not solve problems. The government, whoever is in it, can't seem to get this through their heads. Increasing spending is not some sort of panacea for all social ills. Is there no concept of leverage? Of making the system work for us for the sake of everyone through its own configuration? For all the money that is spent on all types of programs remarkably little is accomplished.

Interestingly enough, I heard today that there have been problems in New York with the "Cash for Clunkers" thing, and the government is not paying the money to car dealerships as promised. Makes you wonder how they will manage a universal health-care system...

80 page GIANT

20 Aug 2009, 10:07 PM

It's a record of GNP. It shows when the New Deal was implemented. It shows when the depression started. It does not show why the depression started, it does not show what effect the New Deal had, whether it was positive, negative, or neutral. It shows nothing other than the dataset for GNP and a correlation with the implementation of the New Deal. Correlation != causation.

I don't need to write a long article on the Great Depression and New Deal. An economist with whom I agree has already done so. I gave you the link. I don't require or even expect you to read it, but I do find your rejection of the material within and my own statements based on nothing but a dataset with which I and the author of the book agree to be quite amusing. Furthermore, I find your ad hominems entirely irrelevant and useless as to the purposes of the debate.

Your argument is akin to:

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/piratesarecool4.gif

Correlation, no causation.

I know I am beating a dead horse here, but I just can't help myself. I also know that it is an exercise in futility to attempt to have an objective discussion with you, but I am compelled to make one last post on this subject, then I will drop it.

Your chart of global temperatures in relation to the number of pirates does not hold up as a proper analogy to the chart of the GDP in relation to the New Deal. For you see, the number of pirates on the high seas has absolutely no bearing on global temperatures, whereas the New Deal had a direct effect on the economy, and hence, the GDP.

Furthermore, the dip in the GDP in 1937-'38 directly correlates to a reduction in federal spending at that time. It's the smoking gun that clearly illustrates just how strongly the GDP was affected by the New Deal:

The monthly data for industrial production show a near three-year collapse under President Hoover, ending when FDR came to office in March 1933. Production rocketed by 44 percent in the first three months of the New Deal and, by December 1936, had completely recovered to surpass its 1929 peak....

...A second cyclical downturn officially began in May 1937 when FDR, always a fiscal conservative, mistakenly thought the economy had become self-sustaining and slashed public spending programs to balance the budget. These harsh and premature spending cuts caused another severe recession that ended after 13 months in June 1938.

When the economy again contracted sharply in late 1937 and early 1938, FDR quickly reversed course and rapid growth immediately began again. GDP soared by 10.9 percent in 1939 and industrial production soared by 23 percent.

http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009020603/fdr-failed-myth

But I guess you'd prefer to pretend that magical invisible bunnies leaving baskets of cash at everyone's doorsteps was the driving force behind the dramatic rise of the GDP from 1933 on (after all, you haven't offered any other possible explanations).

"InsertNameHere"

20 Aug 2009, 10:08 PM

I see. So why is it so expensive?

Was that really a question?:dont:

Same as the oil companies. Profits, my friend (good). Cash (good). Perhaps, greed (not so good)...

80 page GIANT

20 Aug 2009, 10:29 PM

I see. So why is it so expensive?

Moreover, why is health insurance so important anyway?....

Well considering that malpractice claims are less than 1/5 of one percent of health care costs, yet claims are less than one percent, it would seem that the insurance industry is making a lot of profit off of malpractice insurance (minus their administrative costs, of course).

Health insurance, like car insurance, is something that you hope you'll never have to use. The older you get though, the higher your chances will become of needing it. While in your twenties, it may make more financial sense not to buy a policy...the odds of you getting a disease or having a cataclysmic accident are low. As you get older though, those odds change.

oxyjen

20 Aug 2009, 10:33 PM

I noticed that people that survive cancer all have one thing in common: a will to live. Specifically, their will to live is stronger than cancer, and so the cancer goes away or at least ceases to be terminal. Medical care can only go so far. On the same line, people who are depressed are more likely to die of illness than people who are not, namely because people who are depressed generally have less will to live, and so less of their energy is put towards self-preservation. Anyway...

Yes, I know one's attitude affects medical outcomes but I'm not sure why you felt the need to include this in a discussion about health care reform. I certainly hope you're not implying that people diagnosed with cancer should be given a copy of The Secret rather than, ya know, actual medical treatment.

With access to affordable medical care, at least more cases of cancer would get caught before it's in the "oh shit, let me rustle up some will to live" stage 4 tragedy.

Jonnyboy

20 Aug 2009, 10:41 PM

Moreover, why is health insurance so important anyway? My parents and others in that age group that I know didn't have health insurance when they were my age (20s), and got by just fine. Also, once I am no longer allowed on my father's plan, I plan on not having health insurance, mostly because I rarely use it now, so it's not worth the investment. I'm healthy and cautious, so illness and accidents are kept to a minimum.

Though I wonder. If people can't afford health insurance now, how will the same people, with the same income (whatever that may be) be able to pay for health care from the government? Supposing government sponsored healthcare will be funded by tax dollars, everyone is still paying for healthcare. How does having the government run it make it more affordable?

Interestingly enough, I heard today that there have been problems in New York with the "Cash for Clunkers" thing, and the government is not paying the money to car dealerships as promised. Makes you wonder how they will manage a universal health-care system...

In response to your first paragraph, insurance of any form is important because is provides protection against the unexpected. If you were diagnosed with cancer, or hit by a car, without health insurance... well you'd be fucked. What insurance functions as is a form of community assistance. If you were well loved in your community, people would flock to help you pay for medical bills should you need them. However, given the nature of our society, that won't happen; enter insurance. Rather than be nice to people, everyone simply has to put money in a big pot, and take out of it when certain criteria are met, those criterea being agreed upon beforehand of course.

In reponse to your second paragraph, they won't. The wealthy will have to pay for the poor to receive health insurance. Higher taxes, a redistribution of wealth.

In response to your third paragraph, I'd like to see the article.

euterpenc

20 Aug 2009, 10:43 PM

Was that really a question?:dont:

Same as the oil companies. Profits, my friend (good). Cash (good). Perhaps, greed (not so good)...

That doesn't answer my question. Just because something is profitable does not mean it is expensive. I was hoping for a more detailed and technical response with reference to how the system actually works.

To be honest, I really don't understand half the shit that goes on nowadays. I don't understand what's good or bad about our current health-care system. The most I've gotten is that some people aren't getting it, and the people that do get it should pay for the people who don't get it. But I still don't understand why all this is necessary.

80 page GIANT

20 Aug 2009, 10:49 PM

...Though I wonder. If people can't afford health insurance now, how will the same people, with the same income (whatever that may be) be able to pay for health care from the government? Supposing government sponsored healthcare will be funded by tax dollars, everyone is still paying for healthcare. How does having the government run it make it more affordable?

One of the goals of health care reform is to establish large group rates for small companies and individuals. Large corporations now get their insurance policies at a discount, since they buy in volume. Small companies sometimes join larger pools to get a cheaper rate, but many have to pay more for their employee's premiums than large companies do. For middle aged and older people, individual health insurance policies are ridiculously expensive, unless you just opt for one with a huge deductible (which would only really be beneficial if you came down with a disease or had a serious accident).

Jonnyboy

20 Aug 2009, 10:49 PM

That doesn't answer my question. Just because something is profitable does not mean it is expensive. I was hoping for a more detailed and technical response with reference to how the system actually works.

To be honest, I really don't understand half the shit that goes on nowadays. I don't understand what's good or bad about our current health-care system. The most I've gotten is that some people aren't getting it, and the people that do get it should pay for the people who don't get it. But I still don't understand why all this is necessary.

It is necessary in part because there are young people like you who are uninsured. At what age would you start getting health insurance? When you have a job enabling you to afford it? What if you could only get minimum wage for the rest of your life? Would you wait until 30? 40?

I am 23 and pay for my own insurance. $140 dollars a month, but a small sacrifice for the security.

euterpenc

20 Aug 2009, 10:50 PM

In response to your first paragraph, insurance of any form is important because is provides protection against the unexpected. If you were diagnosed with cancer, or hit by a car, without health insurance... well you'd be fucked. What insurance functions as is a form of community assistance. If you were well loved in your community, people would flock to help you pay for medical bills should you need them. However, given the nature of our society, that won't happen; enter insurance. Rather than be nice to people, everyone simply has to put money in a big pot, and take out of it when certain criteria are met, those criterea being agreed upon beforehand of course.

In reponse to your second paragraph, they won't. The wealthy will have to pay for the poor to receive health insurance. Higher taxes, a redistribution of wealth.

In response to your third paragraph, I'd like to see the article.

I understand how insurance works, though it is sort of a bizarre thought to me. No matter how much money anyone spends, tomorrow will be uncertain. That's just how things are. From a practical perspective, if you never use your insurance you through away thousands of dollars for nothing. It's like terrible casino game. Sure it has its function though, I will concede. Not sure if you know this, but why don't insurance companies pay you back for money you don't use? Surely they don't keep it all as profit? If so, we are morons for making such a foolish investment in someone else's gain.

What if the poor live in dangerous places, or behave in risky ways, or any number of other things that would raise their insurance costs to higher than the those of the "wealthy"? It doesn't seem fair that more than just paying for someone else's insurance I am paying more for theirs than for my own, since I take care of my health.

Maybe not the article, but an article: http://money.cnn.com/2009/08/20/news/companies/clunkers_sales/?postversion=2009082010

euterpenc

20 Aug 2009, 10:55 PM

One of the goals of health care reform is to establish large group rates for small companies and individuals. Large corporations now get their insurance policies at a discount, since they buy in volume. Small companies sometimes join larger pools to get a cheaper rate, but many have to pay more for their employee's premiums than large companies do. For middle aged and older people, individual health insurance policies are ridiculously expensive, unless you just opt for one with a huge deductible (which would only really be beneficial if you came down with a disease or had a serious accident).

I see. So how will the government be able to change that? Simply by taxation?

Do you know why it's cheaper to buy things in bulk anyway?

Hustler

20 Aug 2009, 11:02 PM

The US has the highest rates of obesity in the world.

It may surprise you to learn that this is inaccurate. The US is about 10th in the world. The best link I could find on the subject (http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html) places the US at 9th. I realize that link is for overweight and not obese, but the obesity rankings are very similar. The point is that certain cultures are all about being overweight as a matter of course (some South Pacific island countries), and some countries that you might not suspect are subject to the worldwide obesity epidemic (places like Kuwait or Argentina).

bass_n_treble

20 Aug 2009, 11:22 PM

Maybe I'm just fragile, but I feel violated when I look at my paycheck and see how much money I've lost that I'll never see again. It also hurts my feelings that people don't think I would contribute to the well-being of other people. Personally, I just have a hard time doing things when I feel forced to or backed into a corner. I often automatically resist. For instance, if I was about to give money towards universal healthcare, or some such, and then someone came barging in and took my money and demands I pay for it, I would want to decline my donation, simply for the fact that someone is trying forcibly to take it from me. It undermines my choice and that makes me feel like less of a human being. I am not being sarcastic or trying to be funny or clever, but that's how I really feel.

This is valid, sure. But you accept it by working on the books. Maybe you should move to a rogue state or join the Secession party.

What really brought me to realize this is during some town hall or something Obama was at where he said "This is no longer just a moral imperative, but it is a fiscal imperative." This statement indicated to me that Obama thinks money is more important than morals, which is ironic considering his rhetoric about helping the downtrodden. It really blew me away, hearing that. The president himself admits that it is all a matter of money. Right and wrong don't matter, caring about our fellow man doesn't matter, what matters is money: who has it, where it is, what it is being spent on, etc. "Fiscal Imperative" sounds like another definition of greed.

Not to oversimplify a complex problem, but I think he is just trying to appeal in a bipartisan matter. What he said is neither left or right. I think he's trying to appeal to whatever altruistic emotion might be left in people since the economic collapse. If I try to see this problem in a black and white matter, it really does boil down to everyone should be entitled to health care vs. I earned this money fair and square, hands off.

I think he's trying to say that if someone had to pay for their heart surgery out of pocket because they can't afford healthcare, or that they didn't qualify because of a pre-existing condition, they wouldn't have been able to hold on to their money. So as much as they were entitled to raise to the tax bracket they are in (sometimes simply for being born into the right family), others should be afforded this opportunity, if only to survive and be able to work to earn more money for the bloated CEO who just got heart surgery.

Note: A lot of the people who preach about how the rich don't give enough and such like, don't give much themselves. For instance, the Obama's and their high bills for the sake of luxury. For wanting to improve the lot of the poor, they sure do live the high life.

Yup, because 43 presidents before him lived in squalor and didn't take months of vacation while the world around him was deteriorating lol... give me a break.

euterpenc

21 Aug 2009, 12:10 AM

Not to oversimplify a complex problem, but I think he is just trying to appeal in a bipartisan matter. What he said is neither left or right. I think he's trying to appeal to whatever altruistic emotion might be left in people since the economic collapse. If I try to see this problem in a black and white matter, it really does boil down to everyone should be entitled to health care vs. I earned this money fair and square, hands off.

I think he's trying to say that if someone had to pay for their heart surgery out of pocket because they can't afford healthcare, or that they didn't qualify because of a pre-existing condition, they wouldn't have been able to hold on to their money. So as much as they were entitled to raise to the tax bracket they are in (sometimes simply for being born into the right family), others should be afforded this opportunity, if only to survive and be able to work to earn more money for the bloated CEO who just got heart surgery.

Perhaps I should have clarified, but that was in a speech about the housing situation a while back. Either way though, if what you say is true, talking about money is a way to be bipartisan. Morality does split people sometimes, I suppose.

In any case, take to heart what an imperative is. If taken literally, what he seemed to be saying is that money is more powerful force of "command, entreaty, exhortation" than is morality. That may be the case for many people, sadly, but for our president, who is supposed to set an example to say something like that with the intention of persuading people throws me off. After all his rhetoric of "change" and "hope" he goes off and says that money > morals? To me it was a confirmation of my suspicions about how spiritually and morally poor our nation has become.

Hermione

21 Aug 2009, 12:20 AM

No what Bass and tR said is true. If we keep fucking each other over because some are wealthy and a lot are poor and a whole lot of us are over educated successful AND still poor, we economically and morally fuck our country up some more. It already is very bad. It's going to get worse. Some are simply trying to STOP the bleeding just a tad. You can read a little and watch even a couple of news shows and get it that there is no more middle class and what we do have is sliding off into the ocean and into the welfare pool. Other democratic societies have no prollem supplying their EQUAL citizenry with EQUAL services now do they?

I'm equal enough to need fire dept. , water, cable and phone and water and electric bills and taxes, and to vote in every election for thirty years, to pay taxes for 35 years, but well if my boat isn't floating to well at this exact moment and I do need care? Oh wellz, right? Yep that's the Amerikan spirit for you. Hell, they've all got brainwashed. I knew it would happen too.

Oh and being a mom and a homeowner no I will NOT work four jobs instead of the three I now work in order to keep what I've earned from being an honest person and too stoopid to screw people over. I just never could want to board that ship.

I like what I see when I look in the mirror though. My side may not win. I'll move. Lots of us have already gone and are still going at a high rate. The gov't doesn' t have those numbers though so you have to rely on journalists. New Zealand, Australia, the UK, Canada. Just getting used to the idea again. Last time was during Viet Nam.

Technical

21 Aug 2009, 12:22 AM

Most illogical. Fascinating.

http://www.bps-ok.org/kane/trek_teachers/Mr_Spock.jpg

bass_n_treble

21 Aug 2009, 12:27 AM

Oligarchy FTW!

I find it immensely ironic that the hippies who fought against 'the man' have not hesitated to screw everyone when the opportunity presented itself.

Technical: You win this thread.

airjaw

21 Aug 2009, 12:48 AM

It may surprise you to learn that this is inaccurate. The US is about 10th in the world. The best link I could find on the subject (http://www.forbes.com/2007/02/07/worlds-fattest-countries-forbeslife-cx_ls_0208worldfat.html) places the US at 9th. I realize that link is for overweight and not obese, but the obesity rankings are very similar. The point is that certain cultures are all about being overweight as a matter of course (some South Pacific island countries), and some countries that you might not suspect are subject to the worldwide obesity epidemic (places like Kuwait or Argentina).

Thank you for the fact check. My overall point still stands, however. Here are the top ten countries:

1. Nauru 94.5
2. Micronesia, Federated States of 91.1
3. Cook Islands 90.9
4. Tonga 90.8
5. Niue 81.7
6. Samoa 80.4
7. Palau 78.4
8. Kuwait 74.2
9. United States 74.1
10. Kiribati 73.6
11. Dominica

The reality is that the bolded countries don't really matter. This is just a guess of course but I don't have time to research 10 countries I've never heard of and which probably consist of islands of 10 square km somewhere in the Pacific or Caribbean. Their low population sizes and miniscule economies means that they shouldn't be taken into account when determining the cost per capita of a socialized healthcare system. If only there was a graph that plotted obesity as % of population vs. healthcare costs spent in a socialized healthcare system.

edit:Honestly, I'm not sure how much role obesity will play in driving up health costs. There are so many variables in play including quality of food, pollution in the environment, stress in the culture or lifestyles, bureaucracy in the system, etc. My point is that the US definitely leads all other significant countries in obesity rates and people should take that into account in the healthcare debate.

Hermione

21 Aug 2009, 01:00 AM

Oligarchy FTW!

I find it immensely ironic that the hippies who fought against 'the man' have not hesitated to screw everyone when the opportunity presented itself.

Exactly. Quite a disappointment. They went right from psychadelics to psycho weasels. Sell-outs. bphhhft.

Technical

21 Aug 2009, 01:11 AM

Oligarchy FTW!

I find it immensely ironic that the hippies who fought against 'the man' have not hesitated to screw everyone when the opportunity presented itself.

Technical: You win this thread.
I won it days ago, and why do I get the feeling no one understood what Spock was saying?

euterpenc

21 Aug 2009, 01:12 AM

Most illogical. Fascinating.

http://www.bps-ok.org/kane/trek_teachers/Mr_Spock.jpg

rofl.

@Hermione: I didn't quite understand what you were trying to get across. Would you mind rephrasing it or something similar?

Hustler

21 Aug 2009, 01:12 AM

Thank you for the fact check. My overall point still stands, however. Here are the top ten countries:

1. Nauru 94.5
2. Micronesia, Federated States of 91.1
3. Cook Islands 90.9
4. Tonga 90.8
5. Niue 81.7
6. Samoa 80.4
7. Palau 78.4
8. Kuwait 74.2
9. United States 74.1
10. Kiribati 73.6
11. Dominica

The reality is that the bolded countries don't really matter.

It says something about human nature when countries the world around with the means to overproduce and over-consume calories do so almost ubiquitously. Of first-world countries, only two (Japan and Singapore) are among the lowest 20% of all countries in rates of overweight people. It's useful to consider what they're doing right. Furthermore, when cultures as different as Dominica and Kuwait show up alongside the US near the top of lists like this, it speaks to a trend that goes beyond the borders of the US and is not something that can be fully understood until we are able to see past our own plates of bacon and eggs to determine what's going on.

What's interesting to me is when you look at a list of the countries in the world that consume the most energy per capita, you see the same sort of trend. Those countries with the means to overproduce and over-consume energy do just that. Countries like Qatar or Iceland, where energy is readily produced also consume far more energy than countries like Japan, where natural energy resources are comparatively scarce. It is perhaps fundamental to our nature as humans that we will over-consume when given the opportunity, as it seems to transcend culture, and as production and technology continue to increase the world around, this tendency is going to continue to manifest itself in harmful and wasteful ways, unless we think of some method to deal with it.

It's doubly damaging when you consider that the excess food being consumed by first-worlders could be feeding the people in Eritrea and Ethiopia, where immense rates of malnourishment keep obesity rates down by way of starvation and disempowerment. Free market proponents will no doubt say, "too bad for them for being too poor to afford food, and besides, we're overpopulated on this planet as is" but if the demand for grossly excessive amounts of food weren't almost universally present among first-worlders, food would become more affordable for those who don't even get enough to survive and empower themselves to move beyond mere survival to being productive members of society.

Of course, it may be beyond the scope of US healthcare reform to do anything about this anytime soon, and most Americans are probably less interested in actually understanding health and global distribution and more interested in knowing they can afford drugs when their type-II diabetes or cancer sets in. So, as such, consider this a tangent.

Hermione

21 Aug 2009, 01:17 AM

Exactly. It's the "haves" and the "have nots" and the "have all the power don't need no brains" all over basically.

Technical

21 Aug 2009, 01:27 AM

Exactly. It's the "haves" and the "have nots" and the "have all the power don't need no brains" all over basically.
Like the USSR, China, Cuba, North Korea, and East Germany? But with more haves than have nots?

What you want is "Perfection, next year," and every time that's been attempted, disaster's been the result.

Harion

23 Aug 2009, 09:11 AM

just a question. are those against healthcare reform against any and all kinds of reform or are they just against the kind being proposed now? is everyone in agreement that the current system sucks? or are there who thinks the current healthcare system is okay as it is and doesn't need any changing?
and if everyone agrees healthcare in the US needs a reform, then shouldn't the focus be not in stopping the bill but in refining the bill? so basically the GOP doesn't want ANY reform at all?
maybe we should just ask everyone in the U.S if they are happy with the current system and go from there. if majority are happy, then just drop the damn idea of reforming it and wait until majority ask for changes. but if everyone is unhappy and desires some form of change, then it's all just about quibbling isn't it? what to change and what not to change, how to change it.
maybe we should ask everyone here how they think reform should be done.

Chunes

23 Aug 2009, 10:49 PM

You honestly think countrywide democracy is the way to run things? So because 75% of people have insurance they're happy with, the other 25% shouldn't have any simply because they're outnumbered?

Madrigal

24 Aug 2009, 12:11 AM

and some countries that you might not suspect are subject to the worldwide obesity epidemic (places like Kuwait or Argentina).
I dunno where you get your statistics, perhaps some credible-sounding source, but this is a total surprise to me. Obesity is not a problem I have ever perceived here.

euterpenc

24 Aug 2009, 12:35 AM

You honestly think countrywide democracy is the way to run things? So because 75% of people have insurance they're happy with, the other 25% shouldn't have any simply because they're outnumbered?

That's how we elect our presidents and so-called "representatives." Democracy is majority rule, it raises the herd to a level of power unseen in any other form of government. Numbers rule now. Nothing beats material superiority. Doesn't matter how intelligent, wise, useful, unique, creative, or what have you. You could have a group of the most intelligent, physically fit, talented artists, talented fighters on the planet collected, but they couldn't do anything against a raging horde of millions of people. And so, the individual will remain in subservient obedience to the majority. God bless America.

Technical

24 Aug 2009, 12:41 AM

just a question. are those against healthcare reform against any and all kinds of reform or are they just against the kind being proposed now? is everyone in agreement that the current system sucks? or are there who thinks the current healthcare system is okay as it is and doesn't need any changing?
I think I'm becoming an Objectivist (re: economics), because I think Rand saw deeper than I have before, on the issue of economics. Friedman, as well.

Those who advocate socialist policy (As in, government taxation followed by provision of services to some) don't consider what would happen in a completely free market. I have proposed, but I don't claim to be the first, that a natural balance would result, including eventualities such as free health care becoming available to the poor, provided at will by the wealthy.

My concerns aren't so much for justice, as Rand's might have been, but more results, as Friedman's seemed to be. I really think they had something.

shadow master

24 Aug 2009, 12:50 AM

Deepak Chopra has some good views on health care reform.

http://www.intent.com/deepakchopra/blog/health-care-reform-lets-face-truth-pt-1

Hermione

24 Aug 2009, 12:55 AM

That's how we elect our presidents and so-called "representatives." Democracy is majority rule, it raises the herd to a level of power unseen in any other form of government. Numbers rule now. Nothing beats material superiority. Doesn't matter how intelligent, wise, useful, unique, creative, or what have you. You could have a group of the most intelligent, physically fit, talented artists, talented fighters on the planet collected, but they couldn't do anything against a raging horde of millions of people. And so, the individual will remain in subservient obedience to the majority. God bless America.

Totally. It's called Capitalists duh. [they'll shoot you if you don't like it too]

euterpenc

24 Aug 2009, 01:16 AM

Totally. It's called Capitalists duh. [they'll shoot you if you don't like it too]

???

Chunes

24 Aug 2009, 02:38 AM

I think I'm becoming an Objectivist (re: economics), because I think Rand saw deeper than I have before, on the issue of economics.

Uggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh

I knew there was something I distrusted about you. You seriously just drew the Rand card? Ughh..

Technical

24 Aug 2009, 02:40 AM

Uggggggggggggghhhhhhhhh

I knew there was something I distrusted about you. You seriously just drew the Rand card? Ughh..
I never looked into her work before. And what makes you think I value your political opinions? I despise them.

Chunes

24 Aug 2009, 02:42 AM

Good, since I'd be mildly perturbed if you didn't.

Hermione

24 Aug 2009, 02:47 AM

???

What I meant by that is that the majority rules as you said and I totally agree with your post there. . . all of it. I was merely being ascerbic that we are more strongly capitalistic than in anyway worried about being democratic. The ruling principle is money and greed and way too 'who cares about everyone else?' to truly maintain democracy as it were.

The snideness about the guns and 'we'll shoot you if you don't agree' is simply the way I see it played out here today. I've changed opinions on this country for about the fifth time now. Been here too long I guess. lol

jyng1

24 Aug 2009, 03:00 AM

Thank you for the fact check. My overall point still stands, however. Here are the top ten countries:

1. Nauru 94.5
2. Micronesia, Federated States of 91.1
3. Cook Islands 90.9
4. Tonga 90.8
5. Niue 81.7
6. Samoa 80.4
7. Palau 78.4
8. Kuwait 74.2
9. United States 74.1
10. Kiribati 73.6
11. Dominica

The reality is that the bolded countries don't really matter. This is just a guess of course but I don't have time to research 10 countries I've never heard of and which probably consist of islands of 10 square km somewhere in the Pacific or Caribbean. Their low population sizes and miniscule economies means that they shouldn't be taken into account when determining the cost per capita of a socialized healthcare system. If only there was a graph that plotted obesity as % of population vs. healthcare costs spent in a socialized healthcare system.

edit:Honestly, I'm not sure how much role obesity will play in driving up health costs. There are so many variables in play including quality of food, pollution in the environment, stress in the culture or lifestyles, bureaucracy in the system, etc. My point is that the US definitely leads all other significant countries in obesity rates and people should take that into account in the healthcare debate.

Most of the countries on the list above are impoverished and in Kiribati for instance, which is 4 metres above sea level at its highest point and is having trouble growing shit because of salt water incursion into its water supply, the main food source is rice and tinned shit like corned beef. Tonga is a major importer of mutton flaps which used to be used to make blood and bone fertiliser and consist mainly of fat. But they also talk about a fat gene for pacific islanders; the idea being that their diet used to be so low in fat that they now have a craving for it. Now they can't go past a KFC (take it back on the plane for the relatives when they go back to the islands).

That is rather telling isn't it. For me its the fact that they have systems like that in other countries, and their health care is rated better than ours by the good people at WHO.

I don't know if its already been posted, bur for reference, these are the top rated health care systems in the world.
http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Seems that health is not totally related to expenditure. The USA spends the most on health but is 72nd on the list of healthy nations. Might be better off spending a bit more on the fence at the top of the cliff, rather than the ambulance at the bottom. Might have something to do with the 35 million North Americans who don't have access to basic health care i.e. 9 times the population of my country.

Harion

24 Aug 2009, 03:08 AM

wow. an objectivist.
gotta read up on that stuff before i get my subjective ass totally blown off the water here.

Technical

24 Aug 2009, 03:09 AM

wow. an objectivist.
gotta read up on that stuff before i get my subjective ass totally blown off the water here.
I don't necessarily agree with the title, but that's what Rand called it.

Architectonic

25 Aug 2009, 01:19 PM

are they just against the kind being proposed now? is everyone in agreement that the current system sucks?

Abolish the massive corporate welfare system, other government health care bureaucracy, replace it with consumer subsidies. A means tested (asset and income, but scaled in at above median income/asset levels) voucher system. If done properly, there may even be a net saving for the taxpayer.

The voucher can be supplemented by health insurance - but reforms should be made to close loopholes - cases where individuals thought they were covered, only to have the insurance company change the goal posts after the fact because the insurance company didn't do their homework in the first place and failed to communicate effectively with the customer. The ratio of rejected claims must go down dramatically, along with the amount of INSURED individuals who had to declare bankruptcy due to excessive medical costs.

The New Deal began in 1933. As you can see, except for a dip in 1938, the GDP rose steadily from that point onward.

Australia didn't have a 'new deal' equivalent - spending was cut early and yet our economy started to recover before the USA. The point is that in complex cases, such as those involving the economy, causation is hard to pinpoint...

euterpenc

25 Aug 2009, 09:52 PM

causation is hard to pinpoint...

Indeed. I frankly think it is the will of God. I draw this conclusion from the utter incapacity for humankind to know wtf is going on and take active effective steps to improve it. What is behind the economy is an enigma.

I mean, right now we are in another great depression and I can still go to Starbucks. Truly, I am bewildered by economics.

euterpenc

25 Aug 2009, 09:56 PM

What I meant by that is that the majority rules as you said and I totally agree with your post there. . . all of it. I was merely being ascerbic that we are more strongly capitalistic than in anyway worried about being democratic. The ruling principle is money and greed and way too 'who cares about everyone else?' to truly maintain democracy as it were.

The snideness about the guns and 'we'll shoot you if you don't agree' is simply the way I see it played out here today. I've changed opinions on this country for about the fifth time now. Been here too long I guess. lol

I see. Well, i agree about the money thing, but idk that democracy is any better. I saw my the insignificance of my vote in the last election and have since decided that democracy is inadequate for equal representation, should such be possible. The fact that no one's vote counts is what gets me. If a bunch of morons are the majority, and want to do something fucked up, by golly more power to 'em!

Unless you are part of a majority you lose out in democracy. If you are not wealthy you lose out in capitalism. Both rely on giving power to people based on some quantity. Greater quantity beats lesser quantity. Votes or money. Pick your poison.

airjaw

25 Aug 2009, 11:56 PM

Seems that health is not totally related to expenditure. The USA spends the most on health but is 72nd on the list of healthy nations. Might be better off spending a bit more on the fence at the top of the cliff, rather than the ambulance at the bottom.

Of course it's not totally related to expenditure. Actually, one could make a case that there is an inverse relation - the more sick you are the more you are required to spend on your health.

Might have something to do with the 35 million North Americans who don't have access to basic health care i.e. 9 times the population of my country.

It might also have to do with individual choices people make within the context of our culture and environment. I don't care how good France's healthcare system is - put all the obese Americans in it and I bet their healthcare costs would shoot up. If Americans have the unhealthiest diet and lifestyles then we'd probably also spend the most on all the health problems our fat asses have developed.

Hermione

26 Aug 2009, 12:00 AM

jyng1

26 Aug 2009, 12:24 AM

Of course it's not totally related to expenditure. Actually, one could make a case that there is an inverse relation - the more sick you are the more you are required to spend on your health.

I think my point was similar to that slowly being recognised in workplaces. It's more productive to have wellness pay, than sickness pay. Same as hospitals; money in most health systems goes towards sickness and injury, rather than health and injury prevention. Obesity and inactivity for instance is not well addressed in most western countries, even though physical activity in work related output has reduced from 8 hours average per day 100 years ago to 20 minutes a day today.

Here for instance, there's a very vocal opposition to cyclists in cities, yet we're the 3rd fattest nation on earth. MacDonalds here are talking of increasing outlets by 30% but there are clear links between fast food and obesity. Our schools were recently required by government to sell healthy food to school children, but there was such an outcry about the nanny state that the new government changed the law back.

Sickness related expenditure here has increased by 6% a year for the last 10 years. 3 times the level of increases in national productivity and fundamentally unaffordable.

The fence at the top starts with spending money on kids in schools with education about healthy eating and living and other "health" strategies rather than implicit or explicit support for "sickness" management. To decrease the costs on a system that is rapidly self destructing might require some radical rethinking. Some of this might involve personal liberties such as being able to choose to be morbidly obese.

airjaw

26 Aug 2009, 12:29 AM

Hermione

26 Aug 2009, 12:32 AM

Exactly.
Whot? Two people making sense at the same time, on intpc?
hmm It could work.

jyng1

26 Aug 2009, 12:34 AM

It's obvious to me too why the life expectancy is somewhat decreased here, besides the lousy health Industry and capitalists banking on our paying twice for minimal care.

Lots and lots of premature deaths. Guns. Period.

Approx 28,000 for guns per annum vs 42,000 for vehicle accidents vs 32,000 for suicide vs 435,000 for smoking vs 112,000 for obesity related deaths.

Probably all of these could do with legislation, education etc and this would have a substantial effect on sickness expenditure.

Most change is related to pyschological issues, public will etc. i.e. a lot of people in the states like their cars (and driving fast) and their guns and Taco Bell. Good luck taking them away.

Hustler

26 Aug 2009, 02:26 AM

Just to be fair, I dont' think McDonalds is to blame. I'm a big mcdonalds supporter and if you look at their menu they've added MANY healthy choices. In fact, you can eat cheaper and healthier at McDonalds than you can at MANY other US restaurants and yet you hardly ever see anyone complaining about them. And mcdonalds has always been healthier than the stuff I ate at school lunches.

This is partially true. McDonald's has become more health and environmentally conscious over the years, but it used to be extremely unhealthy. It's unlikely that your school lunches were worse for you than McDonald's back when an order of fries had eight grams of trans fat and a ridiculous amount of sodium in them. To their credit, they have finally phased out trans fat completely. It seems they're currently also working on designing green restaurants for their new locations. All that said, a Big Mac and fries with a large coke is still exceptionally unhealthy, as is the vast majority of what's on the McDonald's menu. People going there will still have to make informed choices in order to eat healthily, and the menu is still quite restrictive for a healthy eater.

airjaw

26 Aug 2009, 08:30 AM

My school lunches back in the day were tacos, pizza, spaghetti, sloppy joes, hamburgers, tater tots, even fries.. etc. I remember seeing the nutritional facts and they averaged around 1000 calories per meal.

In any case, you're right that you have to consciously choose healthy options at McDonalds. I don't want to derail this thread any further. I just felt like defending McDonalds.

airjaw

26 Aug 2009, 08:41 AM

I think both moving in a socialist direction or moving in a free-market direction could work.
We already have evidence that a universal healthcare model works better than ours does in many countries. Theoretically, there are a few reforms to our current system that should improve healthcare delivery as well. The problem as I see it is that we can't decide which direction to go in, so we keep patching the system up with new legislation. This country is way too divided right now to agree on anything.

I think the best thing right now to do is to make improvements to the current system. If we can't have socialized healthcare then we might as well have a better free-market system.

jyng1

30 Aug 2009, 09:53 AM

Interesting documentary on tonight on American medical refugees(those that have no insurance). 250,000 seek medical operations outside of the States. $1,000,000,000 industry for a variety of countries, mainly Mexico, India etc, although NZ has just started taking some American vagrants (only the cute ones). US$23,000 for hip replacement, flights, accommodation for the victim patient and one other. I think this is 60% cheaper than the US (wasn't really listening at that point). Probably even get an American Doctor (unlikely to get a NZ one, they're all in the UK making their fortune).

oxyjen

10 Sep 2009, 02:11 AM

So many things I wanted to know about the health care plan, and Obama fucking nailed it tonight.

Anyone catch who yelled "You lie"?

Hermione

10 Sep 2009, 02:20 AM

Nailed it he did. I didn't catch who said that.
I wonder if that person understands that I'm just not willing to die yet so they can be a pansy ass wealthy freak? Whose kids I probably have taught.

Technical

10 Sep 2009, 02:22 AM

BOBAMBA SHUCKTIDAY!

http://i30.tinypic.com/29f4lea.jpg

booyalab

10 Sep 2009, 02:22 AM

You know what makes me doubt all the claims about government-financed health care being hopelessly inefficient and shitty?

The fact that private insurance companies are so afraid of having to compete with the government.

Because they can charge artificially lower prices. Duh. How does that translate to government being less shitty than claimed?

oxyjen

10 Sep 2009, 02:32 AM

From the mouth of Larry King:

Mmmmhmmm, and FedEx is running the U.S. Postal Service out of business.

The govt plan will be shittier, and people with money won't buy it....but at least it will provide the people who couldn't afford anything at least basic coverage.

I'm more excited about the insurance reform--ending recission, changing rules about pre-existing conditions, etc.

C.J.Woolf

10 Sep 2009, 02:48 AM

I only saw the end of Obama's speech. I liked how he praised Senators Hatch, McCain, and Grassley for their work on healthcare bills. Reading between the lines, they are hypocrites to oppose the next healthcare bill. But Obama didn't say that. :devil:

bass_n_treble

10 Sep 2009, 04:14 AM

An interesting snippet I read on current.com, after fishing about for information on Dennis Kucinich (one of the few left in Congress with any integrity whatsoever):

http://files.whitenoiserants.webnode.com/200000027-c...

GO DENNIS GO !

WAKE UP AMERICA, WAKE UP AMERICA, WAKE UP AMERICA !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv0smG7ptcM

"At what point do imbalances in access to money, media, and society’s administrative apparatuses constitute the censorship of dissent?" - Harvard Anthropology Prof Lorand Matory

“Washington has become Versailles. We are ruled, entertained and informed by courtiers. The popular media are courtiers. The Democrats, like the Republicans, are courtiers. Our pundits and experts are courtiers. We are captivated by the hollow stagecraft of political theater as we are ruthlessly stripped of power. It is smoke and mirrors, tricks and con games. We are being had.” - Chris Hedges

"The only difference between the GOP & DEMs is the velocity with which their knees hit the floor when corporations knock at the door." - Ralph Nader

“They call it the 'American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it.” - George Carlin

As usual Greg Palast is spot on ;)

Obama on Drugs: 98% Cheney?
http://www.gregpalast.com/obama-on-drugs-98-cheney/

I searched all over the newspapers and TV transcripts and no one asked the President what is probably the most important question of what passes for debate on the issue of health care reform: $80 billion of WHAT?

Hey, in my neighborhood, people think $80 billion is a lot of money. But is it?

I checked out the government's health stats (at HHS.gov), put fresh batteries in my calculator and toted up US spending on prescription drugs projected by the government for the next ten years. It added up to $3.6 trillion.

In other words, Obama's big deal with Big Pharma saves $80 billion out of a total $3.6 trillion. That's 2%.

Hey thanks, Barack! You really stuck it to the big boys. You saved America from these drug lords robbing us blind. Two percent. Cool!

Nader comes out swigging too ;)

“Now Make Me Do It “

Never much of a fighter against abusive corporate power, Barack Obama is making it increasingly clear that right from his start as President, he wanted health insurance reform that received the approval of the giant drug and health insurance industries.

The whole secret process is seedy and demonstrates cruel disregard for the millions of American who, whether in dire need of medical services or not, voted in “change we can believe in.”

“Make me do it” was the advice of Franklin Delano Roosevelt to reformers when faced with legislation he desired but did not have the votes for in Congress.

The Congressional switchboard is 202-224-3121. The full Medicare, single payer bill (backed by nearly ninety legislators) is H.R. 676. The go-to citizen group for your sustained engagement is singlepayeraction.org.

The rest is up to you, the majority, who want to put the people first.
http://nader.org/index.php?/archives/2134-Now-Make-Me-Do-It.html

“You Do Not Cut Deals with the System that Has to Be Replaced”
Ralph Nader on Secret White House Agreements with the Drug Industry
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/14/you_dont_cut_deals_with_the

BusinessWeek: “The Health Insurers Have Already Won”
http://www.democracynow.org/2009/8/17/business_week_the_health_insurers_have

eyebyte_atWork

10 Sep 2009, 04:40 AM

Obama is the man!

He really made some waves tonight.

Roger Mexico

16 Sep 2009, 06:26 AM

Because they can charge artificially lower prices. Duh. How does that translate to government being less shitty than claimed?

But that's the point. The anti-reform argument is that a health plan managed by the state will provide such bad service as to make it preferable to keep prices at the level they are now.

Presumably, then, those who can afford to pay for private insurance will continue to do so, while those who cannot will enroll in the public option if it is that much more affordable as to make it feasible. (The difference being between inferior care and no care.)

This argument implies that those who cannot currently afford insurance should continue to go without it (or incur debt) in order to preserve whatever market share private insurers would lose as a result of the public option being available. This loss would then be the result of private insurers' inability to maintain their present level of income.

This leads me to ask why those who make this argument believe that the difference in quality between public and private insurance is not great enough to prevent a significant number of those who can afford private insurance from switching to public insurance given the option. It seems to me that, if this were the case, it would imply that the government was able to provide a degree of service acceptable to a rather large number of consumers at a lower price than that charged by those who currently provide them with a similarly acceptable degree of service.