Every generation doomed to repeat the failed Socialism experiment..

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Timorous
I know the thread has moved on from this but I just wanted to point something out.

I live in the UK and I would not trade the NHS for the American health system.

The NHS has its flaws but I have never had to worry about being ill. If I get sick I just go to the doctors and get treatment. If I need any medication I pay for the prescription which is £5.50

The idea of having medical insurance in the hands of a for profit corporation would terrify me. As it is I have never worried about being ill. I do not have to worry about not being covered if I lose my job. I do not have to worry about getting a condition, then losing my job and being unable to get a new insurance policy because of a pre-existing condition.

I pay 11% of my taxable income towards National Insurance. This currently works out to a bit less than £20/week (which is around $32 I believe). This to me is worth every penny because of the peace of mind it provides during ill health.

I do not see why the USA which already has fantastic medical facilities would suddenly provide worse health care if they went with a UHC solution. If the staff are paid the same then I can see the benefit being that all people can get cheaper preventative care rather than waiting until they need to visit the E.R.

Cheers from a fellow Brit, currently in Afghanistan.

I pretty much agree with you on everything you said.

Ditto for most Canadians. The US system is just as flawed or more flawed than the flawed Canadian public system. We'll likely go with a French or German style of system, but not the US system.

Yeah, the French system makes sense to me, well thought out and well functioning for everyone regardless of who you are.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Engineer
I wasn't commentating on whether it's fair or not. I was commentating on the rate being higher than Clinton. As for fair, I don't think it's fair that someone has lower tax rates on capital than my labor so I think it should be taxed the regular marginal tax rates. What makes "them" so special?

For dividends, that money has already been taxed. For cap gains, well, you want people investing in your country, right?

Very few nations have capital gains rates over 20%.

If they want to invest, they can pay what we poor laborers pay. How about this, maybe we should lower the overall marginal rates for all labor, because you want people working in this country, right? (suggesting people won't invest with higher rates is about the same as suggesting that people won't work with higher rates).

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Engineer
I wasn't commentating on whether it's fair or not. I was commentating on the rate being higher than Clinton. As for fair, I don't think it's fair that someone has lower tax rates on capital than my labor so I think it should be taxed the regular marginal tax rates. What makes "them" so special?

For dividends, that money has already been taxed. For cap gains, well, you want people investing in your country, right?

Very few nations have capital gains rates over 20%.

If they want to invest, they can pay what we poor laborers pay. How about this, maybe we should lower the overall marginal rates for all labor, because you want people working in this country, right? (suggesting people won't invest with higher rates is about the same as suggesting that people won't work with higher rates).

About half of laborers pay less than 20% marginal rates...in any case, capital is far more mobile than labor.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: eleison
Great, cannot wait until Obama is president. If history has any bearing, its going to be bad -- high unemployment, inflation, etc. It would be funny if the Bush years, in the future, were seen as the "good years'...

I assume you're going to blame Obama for all bad economic news that's reported after inauguration day, despite the fact that it's obvious to the U.S. and world economy is headed for Davey Jones locker.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
You could say the same thing about capitalism. When was the last time real market capitalism succeeded?

Only time it has been tried was under Pinochet.

And it was a disaster, as in the "Disaster Capitalism" referred to in the title of Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism

 

[Stoneburner]

True Laissez faire capitalism was tried in the US during the Robber Baron Era. Sure there were social programs like public education BUT in terms of the market, it was entirely unregulated. It lead to corruption, monopolization, social stratification, and domestic violence, not to mentioned a consistent 15 year cycle of booms and busts (depressions).

Capitalism in the US has always worked when tempered by socialism. Socialism has worked when tempered by capitalism.

Anybody see the pattern here? I am really troubled by how little people know.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Engineer
I wasn't commentating on whether it's fair or not. I was commentating on the rate being higher than Clinton. As for fair, I don't think it's fair that someone has lower tax rates on capital than my labor so I think it should be taxed the regular marginal tax rates. What makes "them" so special?

For dividends, that money has already been taxed. For cap gains, well, you want people investing in your country, right?

Very few nations have capital gains rates over 20%.

If they want to invest, they can pay what we poor laborers pay. How about this, maybe we should lower the overall marginal rates for all labor, because you want people working in this country, right? (suggesting people won't invest with higher rates is about the same as suggesting that people won't work with higher rates).

About half of laborers pay less than 20% marginal rates...in any case, capital is far more mobile than labor.

Then they can sell "ALL" of their products to China and other countries. Let's see how far it works without a decently paid consumer "labor" force to pay for the items, eh? They can pack their asses and capital up and get out, as far as I'm concerned.

While I dislike unions, the rich are laying the ground for a rebirth of the union and, unless something changes to move the little guy up a tad, it's going to explode, just like it did in the early 20th century.

 

[Vic]

True laissez faire capitalism has never been tried in the US, not even during the Robber Baron era. In fact, the Robber Barons were heavily subsidized by the govt in most cases.

 

[her209]

Under a true capitalist economy, what happens if you can't repay your debt? Do the owners come break your kneecaps? Is there such thing as a limited liability for business owners?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic
True laissez faire capitalism has never been tried in the US, not even during the Robber Baron era. In fact, the Robber Barons were heavily subsidized by the govt in most cases.

True, there has only been one instance of true capitalism and it faild just as badly as communism has.

It's the same with any extremes, they NEVER work, does anyone really think it's a coincidence that EVERY first world nation is a mixed economy that allows religion but does not legislate upon it?

EVERY first world nation is a liberal nation, there is not ONE exception and there never has been.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Democratic Socialism as implemented in Canada and England are widely considered to be successful.

Ask a Canadian if he'd want to trade his UHC for the private system we have here.

Plenty of Canadians come to the US for medical care.

answer the question.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: her209
Under a true capitalist economy, what happens if you can't repay your debt? Do the owners come break your kneecaps? Is there such thing as a limited liability for business owners?

True capitalism can only end in one way, imagine Soviet Union except the government is a corporation, under true capitalism no one regulates the market, under true socialism the government sets all the rules of the market, under communism, the governmet owns the market.

Somewhere in the middle you will find the US and the UK, where the government regulates the market in some ways but a market economy is still in place.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: OneOfTheseDays
Democratic Socialism as implemented in Canada and England are widely considered to be successful.

Ask a Canadian if he'd want to trade his UHC for the private system we have here.

Plenty of Canadians come to the US for medical care.

answer the question.

I would not trade it for the US system which i think is an enormous waste since it costs MORE tax payer money AND you need insurance to get quality care.

Then you get to spend up to 600x more on a drug to cure you, these price differences are not because of government subsidations but rather because there is no regulation and the respective companies have a monopoly on certain drugs (this isn't the entire truth, the lobby will make doctors perscribe medications that are more expensive for some medications where a much cheaper alternative that is the exact same drug exists)

In short, the US system is built around corporations making money, the European, Canadian, South American and Asian systems are built around helping the patient.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
Why do you or anybody need anything more than catastrophic insurance coverage?

The idea is to prevent catastrophes before they occur and for two reasons. First, medical catastrophes are terrible and can have great negative impacts on your life should you endure one. Second, consistently practicing and paying for reasonable preventative care as well as maintaining a decent level of health in general will tremendously reduce one's overall medical costs. Most medical costs occur amongst the elderly. Most elderly that incur the largest medical costs are those that did not practice a healthy lifestyle while they were younger and did not utilize preventative care.

Beyond that, preventative health care is still something which costs a decent amount of money and most are not able to pay for it even though it will cost them much less in the long run. You can also look at it as costing you a lot less in the long run depending on who floats the bill.

You act as though someone is barred from getting a preventative checkup if they don't have insurance.

The funny thing about it is that everyone expects to get more out of a health insurance program than they put into it.......who's going to be the source of funding for all those people?

there is nothing preventing it, however uhc would lead to lower costs, and we are already paying for the uninsured/future bankruptcy's through hospitals allowance for delinquent accounts. They know that alot of people aren't going to pay, so they figure that into their prices. Furthermore, UHC has lower overhead costs since there is less legal bullshit to deal with, particularly compared to private health insurance.

 

[PELarson]

Corporate Socialism - 1981 to 2009 R.N.I.P.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Ryan711

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

They were state run which doesn't have the money of the federal government... why Medicare/medicaid have NOT failed.

You do realize that medicare/medicaid take up 21% of the national budget and only ~10 million people are enrolled in it. I can't imagine 300+ million.

they cost that much because they cover the most at risk groups, the elderly and the poor/bankrupt (who are often poor because of prior illness)

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: eleison

It would be funny if Bush had a better unemployment rate through out his presidency than Obama.

i will guarantee this right now. Obama is going to be inheriting the highest unemployment rates of bushes term.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I agree with Craig. I think that the vast majority of negative figures that McCain supporters will be digging up throughout Obama's presidency when he gets elected will most be a result of Bush.

Likewise, much of the following president's success might be a result of Obama. It is not like we have not seen this pattern before.

Because its not like Reagan and Bush Jr didn't inherit bad economies......

bush JR inherited a great economy and had the mildest recession in american history.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: DLeRium

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Ryan711

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

They were state run which doesn't have the money of the federal government... why Medicare/medicaid have NOT failed.

You do realize that medicare/medicaid take up 21% of the national budget and only ~10 million people are enrolled in it. I can't imagine 300+ million.

10 million of the oldest and unhealthy of the country... they make up a supermajority of the nation's risk. Brain?

Medicare covers 41 million people. There are more than 10 million over 65 obviously. Medicare/Medicaid ARE FAILING. It is a known fact. They have not failed yet, but we all know entitlement programs like this and SS are a scam. Our priority now is the current economic state, but when things are good, then we focus on SS/Medicare. Look at the 2000 election and 1996. Much was talked about SS and impending doom. However, we got more short term things to work out now, but it doesn't change the fact that entitlement programs are about to screw us up the butt really soon.

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: winnar111
We spent ~$400 billion on Dept of HHS in 2000, and that's ~$700 billion in 2008. What we are doing isn't working; we cannot offer Dick Cheney's healthcare to 300 billion people.

We've had socialized programs in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and other states that have all failed. Why should I believe Obama's healthcare program will cost what it says?

I cannot provide you with anything that will make you believe that Obama's UHC program will cost what it says. The bottom line is that you lack confidence in trust in government and that is why you do not believe Obama on his word which is essentially all we have to work with since the real vigorous details that would allow us to conclude otherwise are not available just like McCain's details are not around either.

Speaking of which, might I ask a similar confidence question? Why should I believe that the $5000 that McCain wants to send to insurance companies for each American insured will do anything to reduce insurance costs and result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance in America? Why shouldn't I believe that the insurance companies will use a great deal of the tax payers money for stuff that does not trickle down to the tax paying consumer?

It has nothing to do with trust; it has to do with history:

In the 1960s Medicare spent about $.1 billion a year (1% of the $10+b at the peak of the Vietnam War). It was $220 billion 8 years ago. Today its about $420 billion.

I don't think McCain's proposal will result in more people being insured with greater quality insurance. These gold plated expensive insurance programs are part of the problem.

All McCain's proposal will do is its face value result: It'll lower the cost of insurance by......$5000. For a family that's about $12k to $7k, minus the $3360 in taxes paid on that $12k for most families in the 28% bracket. You save a bit over $1500.

We spend far too much time worrying about a small fraction of the population that is 'uninsured'.

Well what the system really needs is a reduction in cost. McCain's solution of choice is great but at the same time the government is throwing out money. The end goal of this is to get people into the market and competition to drive prices lower. I think more reform is needed in this system before the costs really get driven down. When the costs are driven down, insurance will be more accessible for people.

private insurance costs are higher than employer based insurance costs, the legal overhead is much higher.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Engineer

Originally posted by: winnar111

Originally posted by: Engineer
I wasn't commentating on whether it's fair or not. I was commentating on the rate being higher than Clinton. As for fair, I don't think it's fair that someone has lower tax rates on capital than my labor so I think it should be taxed the regular marginal tax rates. What makes "them" so special?

For dividends, that money has already been taxed. For cap gains, well, you want people investing in your country, right?

Very few nations have capital gains rates over 20%.

If they want to invest, they can pay what we poor laborers pay. How about this, maybe we should lower the overall marginal rates for all labor, because you want people working in this country, right? (suggesting people won't invest with higher rates is about the same as suggesting that people won't work with higher rates).

low capital gains taxes have caused back to back speculative bubbles. Do you consider this a good thing? Real, wise investors should pursue dividends, not speculative profits. Can you imagine a world where it made sense to invest in *profitable* companies?

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: her209
Under a true capitalist economy, what happens if you can't repay your debt? Do the owners come break your kneecaps? Is there such thing as a limited liability for business owners?

who knows, modern capitalism and the mechanisms that support it, such as the courts, the corporation, bankruptcy, etc are all creations of the government.

 

[MaxisOne]

Originally posted by: Timorous
I know the thread has moved on from this but I just wanted to point something out.

I live in the UK and I would not trade the NHS for the American health system.

The NHS has its flaws but I have never had to worry about being ill. If I get sick I just go to the doctors and get treatment. If I need any medication I pay for the prescription which is £5.50

The idea of having medical insurance in the hands of a for profit corporation would terrify me. As it is I have never worried about being ill. I do not have to worry about not being covered if I lose my job. I do not have to worry about getting a condition, then losing my job and being unable to get a new insurance policy because of a pre-existing condition.

I pay 11% of my taxable income towards National Insurance. This currently works out to a bit less than £20/week (which is around $32 I believe). This to me is worth every penny because of the peace of mind it provides during ill health.

I do not see why the USA which already has fantastic medical facilities would suddenly provide worse health care if they went with a UHC solution. If the staff are paid the same then I can see the benefit being that all people can get cheaper preventative care rather than waiting until they need to visit the E.R.

This.

 

[SleepWalkerX]

Originally posted by: her209
Under a true capitalist economy, what happens if you can't repay your debt? Do the owners come break your kneecaps? Is there such thing as a limited liability for business owners?

Negotiate collateral before giving a loan. Otherwise, don't throw your money away.

 

[winnar111]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Then you get to spend up to 600x more on a drug to cure you, these price differences are not because of government subsidations but rather because there is no regulation and the respective companies have a monopoly on certain drugs (this isn't the entire truth, the lobby will make doctors perscribe medications that are more expensive for some medications where a much cheaper alternative that is the exact same drug exists)

In short, the US system is built around corporations making money, the European, Canadian, South American and Asian systems are built around helping the patient.

That monopoly is guaranteed by our constitution. Pharma patents are pretty short as is.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: eleisonGreat, cannot wait until Obama is president. If history has any bearing, its going to be bad -- high unemployment, inflation, etc. It would be funny if the Bush years, in the future, were seen as the "good years'...

Do you really think it would be Obama's fault though? It's not as though we haven't already been set up for an economic depression.

As a result of free market international trade we've shipped lots of jobs overseas and imported foreigners on work visas and let in tens of millions of immigrants, allowing the force of global labor arbitrage (explain that one free market/capitalist dogmatists) to merge the American standard of living with standards of living in the third world, dramatically increasing the supply of labor relative to capital, resulting in a redistribution of wealth from the lower classes to the wealthy.

So blame the upcoming economic depression on free market international trade policies, please.

Yea, the odds are people will get a tax cut with Obama -- that is if they still have a job once Obama gets done fubaring it with the "share the wealth" ideology. Remember, in a bad economy the poor gets hurt the most (lost jobs, no employment, etc)... To the rich, its just one less "golden covered back scratcher" ..just my opinion

Wow! He's going to give 95% of the populace a tax cut? Sounds like a real socialist to me.

So, do you yourself earn over $250,000 or are you just another idiotic Joe the Plumber?

If "capitalism" as you allege is so amazing, why are we in this mess right now? Why is it that the increasing globalization of our economy seems to correspond with a decreasing standard of living and worsening domestic economy?

Maybe you need to check your premises?