Socialized Medicine in a Wealthy Country

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Steeplerot
Strength in numbers Vic, the very idea that a businesspeople are not going to band together to gain a leg up on others in the name of greed is naive, try coming down to reality for a moment. Someone has to keep corporations from forming to take advantage of how lucrative a monopoly is, these fairytale markets of yours with no government intervention have proven themselves to being incapable of stopping injustice and rampant corruption in the name of the almighty dollar.

Like I said a many times before, welcome to the failure of your utopia comrade.

Somewhere, I assume, in this jumbled incoherent mash of words is the point that rot intended to say... 😕

What comes out though, is this odd doublethink belief that using government to prevent competition is the best way to prevent monopoly, and that somehow I support monopoly because I support competition.

edit: Wierder still is this constant straw man that, because I don't support absolute government control, that I must support no government intervention whatsoever, despite the fact that I have never said that, nor does the article even support that idea (which leads one to believe if rot even read the article).

 

[ntdz]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt
conjur,
Explain how Libertarians are not logical and not sane.

Because many so-called Libertarians want a pure free-market with little to no government regulation. They are corporatists in hiding.

And that makes them insane...how? God forbid we don't want the government interfering in our lives. Last I checked, you hate our current government so you should feel the same.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt
conjur,
Explain how Libertarians are not logical and not sane.

Because many so-called Libertarians want a pure free-market with little to no government regulation. They are corporatists in hiding.

And that makes them insane...how? God forbid we don't want the government interfering in our lives. Last I checked, you hate our current government so you should feel the same.

I'd say libertarians are more mistaken ideologues than illogical or insane.

By analogy, I'll compare them to the neocons, insofar as the neocons were perfectly capable of explaining why Iraq would be a short war that paid for itself and spread democracy. They could write articles in foreign policy journals, speak on television, interact with the press, and get leadership positions in our federal government - and yet, now that their policies were implemented, they're all running away with excuses about how someone else didn't do something quite right.

It's not exactly that you can point to a blatant logical error or many consistent logical errors, or simple insanity.

They simply had an informed, complex ideology which was in adquate to the even more complex situation they confronted. They'd become blinded by ideology.

Libertarians, similarly, take a simple idea and turn it into a mountain of ideology and over-apply it, neglecting to note the complex aspects of our society that make things work. They're doomed to cause vast harm to our society should their ideas be implemented, no less so than the well-intentioned communists who had to use more and more authoritarianism to prevent the reality from crushing their policies - or, for that matter, as did our second president who put critics in prison, but we got that fixed.

It's not that easy to argue with a libertarian, because to win any point with them, you have to educate them, and that requires their backtracking on ideology.

It's neigh-impossible to get them to see the error of their ways in my exeprience.

So, instead, I just encourage them to devote themselves to the libertarian party, hoping to split their votes off from the republicans, and get democrats elected.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt
conjur,
Explain how Libertarians are not logical and not sane.

Because many so-called Libertarians want a pure free-market with little to no government regulation. They are corporatists in hiding.

And that makes them insane...how? God forbid we don't want the government interfering in our lives. Last I checked, you hate our current government so you should feel the same.

I'd say libertarians are more mistaken ideologues than illogical or insane.

By analogy, I'll compare them to the neocons, insofar as the neocons were perfectly capable of explaining why Iraq would be a short war that paid for itself and spread democracy. They could write articles in foreign policy journals, speak on television, interact with the press, and get leadership positions in our federal government - and yet, now that their policies were implemented, they're all running away with excuses about how someone else didn't do something quite right.

It's not exactly that you can point to a blatant logical error or many consistent logical errors, or simple insanity.

They simply had an informed, complex ideology which was in adquate to the even more complex situation they confronted. They'd become blinded by ideology.

Libertarians, similarly, take a simple idea and turn it into a mountain of ideology and over-apply it, neglecting to note the complex aspects of our society that make things work. They're doomed to cause vast harm to our society should their ideas be implemented, no less so than the well-intentioned communists who had to use more and more authoritarianism to prevent the reality from crushing their policies - or, for that matter, as did our second president who put critics in prison, but we got that fixed.

It's not that easy to argue with a libertarian, because to win any point with them, you have to educate them, and that requires their backtracking on ideology.

It's neigh-impossible to get them to see the error of their ways in my exeprience.

So, instead, I just encourage them to devote themselves to the libertarian party, hoping to split their votes off from the republicans, and get democrats elected.

You realize that a large faction of "small l" libertarians are democrats, right, Craig? In fact, they're one of the biggest factions out west here, people behind the medical marijuana movements, civil liberties, social freedom, etc. My own libertarianism comes from this direction. In fact, I was proud to call myself a Democrat until self-deluded authoritarian nutcase utopists like yourself with idealistic dreams that government can (and worse yet, should) solve all the world's ills began calling yourself democrats.

 

[Vic]

Yaknow, I would like to know how libertarianism can be such a blinding ideology, when, unlike some other ideologies, you never, absolutely never, hear them say that their ideology requires a perfect world in order to work properly. Like Moonie told you, Craig, you expose more of yourself in your posts than you do other people. Or, in one of my favorite quotes from Orwell: "Nearly all creators of Utopia have resembled the man who has toothache, and therefore thinks happiness consists in not having toothache. They wanted to produce a perfect society by an endless continuation of something that had only been valuable because it was temporary. The wider course would be to say that there are certain lines along which humanity must move, the grand strategy is mapped out, but detailed prophecy is not our business. Whoever tries to imagine perfection simply reveals his own emptiness."

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
Corporations are a form of governace; ever hear of the term "Corporate Governance".

Bahahahahahaha :laugh: like a Fox in charge of the Hen house.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Corporations are a form of governace; ever hear of the term "Corporate Governance".

Bahahahahahaha :laugh: like a Fox in charge of the Hen house.

What are you talking about...
Corporate Governace is a term for the senior executives, NOT self government.

These ppl...jeez...:roll:

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Hmm, maybe we have more in common in terms of economic viewpoints than I thought.

Actually, while I believe there are some functions the government is best suited to perform, I think a lot of instances are best left to the government playing more of a referee role than being one of the participants. The incentive to make money is a powerful one, and one that the government doesn't really have. But they are well suited to making sure everyone plays by the rules.

I think that your ideas for healthcare actually make a lot of sense. The problem with our system in the US (and other countries as well) isn't that it's unequal or unfair, it's that it's too expensive for a lot of people to afford any level of care. Private insurance helps, but it's often still pretty expensive and not every employer offers it. The government trying to run the system isn't going to help the cost problem, it will simply transfer it around. The ideal solution is to make health care cheaper, that not only solves the problem for poorer folks, but helps people at every level without "hiding" the costs the way a government program would.

Congratulations, the bolded statement brings you one step closer to understanding the mind of a libertarian. 🙂

We're not anarchists. We're not fat, old, balding men smoking cigars who keep the chimney fire stoked with poor children. Ignore what nutjobs like Craig234 like to spread in the way of FUD regarding libertarians, it's just not true.

What you said is one of the best ways I've heard a minarchist libertarian government described. The government is a referee, not a direct participant.

As for Stunt's ideas for health care, I'm in full agreement on his list.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt
conjur,
Explain how Libertarians are not logical and not sane.

Because many so-called Libertarians want a pure free-market with little to no government regulation. They are corporatists in hiding.

And that makes them insane...how? God forbid we don't want the government interfering in our lives. Last I checked, you hate our current government so you should feel the same.

Figures you wouldn't have a problem with no regulation. You fawn over people like Tom DeLay and his efforts to maintain abusive child labor practices in places like the Marianas Islands.

You see, (and this goes to Vic and Stunt, too) government regulation is NEEDED to keep the greedy corporatists in line and protect Americans who would otherwise fall victim to the results of that greed.

This isn't government intruding in our lives. That would be like the domestic spying program, banning same-sex marriage, forcing "Creationism" into the schools, etc. No, this is not interfering, it's a form of checks-and-balances.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Corporations are a form of governace; ever hear of the term "Corporate Governance".

Bahahahahahaha :laugh: like a Fox in charge of the Hen house.

What are you talking about...
Corporate Governace is a term for the senior executives, NOT self government.

These ppl...jeez...:roll:

*cough*Worldcom*cough*
*cough*Enron*cough*
*cough*Arthur Anderson*cough*
*cough*Halliburton*cough*
*cough*KBR*cough*

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Corporations are a form of governace; ever hear of the term "Corporate Governance".

Bahahahahahaha :laugh: like a Fox in charge of the Hen house.

What are you talking about...
Corporate Governace is a term for the senior executives, NOT self government.

These ppl...jeez...:roll:

*cough*Worldcom*cough*
*cough*Enron*cough*
*cough*Arthur Anderson*cough*
*cough*Halliburton*cough*
*cough*KBR*cough*

Are you kidding me?!..."Corporate Governace is a term for the senior executives, NOT self government."

I was making the point that corporations have taken the form of government.

 

[conjur]

Is your point that corporations don't require regulation, as that is what the discussion is about?


BTW, here's a new case - Eli Lilly

What fine "citizens" these corporations make. :roll:

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: conjur
Is your point that corporations don't require regulation, as that is what the discussion is about?


BTW, here's a new case - Eli Lilly

What fine "citizens" these corporations make. :roll:

Are you a complete moron?

Originally posted by: Stunt
I don't advocate total elimination of government; I think there's a need for a regulator just not a public institution to administer goods and services.

NOT SELF GOVERNANCE
NOT SELF GOVERNANCE
NOT SELF GOVERNANCE
NOT SELF GOVERNANCE

...sinking in yet conjur?
please don't tell me all Americans are as thick as you are 🙂

 

[DVK916]

Most doctors today support Universal Healthcare, a single payer system. The CMA pushed for a single payer system in California. 🙂.

 

[BoberFett]

Of course doctors support a single payer system. Their administrative costs go down, so their salaries go up.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: techs

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: techs
Wow. How disgustingly decietful.
Almost no one of either party has proposed 'socialized' medicine for the United States.
Yet this article wants us to believe thats what is happening and will happen.
Maybe morons like the author of this party have never read ANY of the proposals for universal health care that have been put forward. Or perhaps he is just a tool of the rich who want to scare everyone into believing that is what universal health care is.

Considering the amount of money the state spends on healthcare, the numbers are not in your favor here.

And wtf does the amount of money spent on healthcare have to do with socialized medicine? As I stated you are just engaging in outright deceit.

The US is trending towards government subsidized medicine.

It has to.

The private sector has become a rich man's club only.

Of course you support all others dying simply because they are not rich.

You didn't even read the f*cking article. If you did, then you suck at comprehension because the article deals with exactly what you are talking about.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Of course doctors support a single payer system. Their administrative costs go down, so their salaries go up.

I was going to say the same thing. These dumb people don't even read the articles.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Stunt

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
Corporations are a form of governace; ever hear of the term "Corporate Governance".

Bahahahahahaha :laugh: like a Fox in charge of the Hen house.

What are you talking about...
Corporate Governace is a term for the senior executives, NOT self government.

These ppl...jeez...:roll:

*cough*Worldcom*cough*
*cough*Enron*cough*
*cough*Arthur Anderson*cough*
*cough*Halliburton*cough*
*cough*KBR*cough*

and that's only a fraction of the big boys outted...

 

[fornax]

Ha-ha, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is either incompetent, or (more likely) purposedly presents so much flawed cr*p that Bush will be proud.

Just a few obvious points:

- he talks about "rich countries" and give examples with the Soviet Union between 1971 and 1986? I wonder why he didn't examine Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and many, many other rich countries with socialized (kind of) medicine, which spend much less than we do and provide better care

- most East European countries actually had decent (if not high-tech) care. And their medicine was truly socialized and rigid. If you look at the UN statistics from those times, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, even Bulgaria had infant mortality comparable with their West European neighbors, but much better than non-rich countries with truly capitalistic health care (South America, Asia, etc.)

-

In fact, the Soviet state stopped collecting data again. But later, once the truth was revealed again,...

So, if statistics was not compiled, how do we know that?

Almost every point of the article can be shot down, but the flaws are so obvious that it won't be much fun.

The fact is: virtually all rich countries with some kind of public or mixed, universal healthcare are doing very well healthwise. Poorer countries with universal healthcare (e.g., most East European contries) are doing pretty well too.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: fornax
Ha-ha, Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is either incompetent, or (more likely) purposedly presents so much flawed cr*p that Bush will be proud.

Just a few obvious points:

- he talks about "rich countries" and give examples with the Soviet Union between 1971 and 1986? I wonder why he didn't examine Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Netherlands, and many, many other rich countries with socialized (kind of) medicine, which spend much less than we do and provide better care

- most East European countries actually had decent (if not high-tech) care. And their medicine was truly socialized and rigid. If you look at the UN statistics from those times, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland, even Bulgaria had infant mortality comparable with their West European neighbors, but much better than non-rich countries with truly capitalistic health care (South America, Asia, etc.)

-

In fact, the Soviet state stopped collecting data again. But later, once the truth was revealed again,...

So, if statistics was not compiled, how do we know that?

Almost every point of the article can be shot down, but the flaws are so obvious that it won't be much fun.

The fact is: virtually all rich countries with some kind of public or mixed, universal healthcare are doing very well healthwise. Poorer countries with universal healthcare (e.g., most East European contries) are doing pretty well too.

Because the author needed to compare a large and productive country to a large and productive country. The dynamics of a large country vs a small country are very different. In fact, the soviet union was very much like the US in many ways. The key difference was in the government, which is why it is such a great comparison. You can't compare the US to a tiny European country with a population that is less than 10% of the US and a GNP of less than 10% of the US. It would be like comparing a mom and pop shop to Walmart. Sure, they are both stores, but it would be stupid to compare them.

 

[Vic]

Not to mention that Lew Rockwell is strongly anti-Bush. There are more political philosophies in this world, ATPN'ers, than just socialism and fascism.

 

[mect]

Do people in here even read the posts anymore or just form a reply based on who posted. No one has been advocating anarchy. They have been advocating a system where the government does not run programs, but rather oversees and intervenes if rules aren't followed.

Edit for actually typing something.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: mect
Do people in here even read the posts anymore or just form a reply based on who posted. No one has been advocating anarchy. They have been advocating a system where the government does not run programs, but rather oversees and intervenes if rules aren't followed.

Edit for actually typing something.

They don't actually have any logical or reasonable arguments beyond bitterness, pessimism, and hate, so the only thing they can do is resort to mischaracterizations, straw men, and personal attacks. People who don't agree with their system of total and complete government control (which they advocate because they foolishly believe that democracy will empower them under such a system) are "blinded," "maladjusted freaks" (Steeplerot called me that when I said I liked the Canadian progressive rock band, Rush, believe it or not), "ideologues" (says the pompous nut who argues that the Democratic party is perfect and without corruption because, supposedly, according to him, they don't take special interest contributions), "corporatists" (that's what conjur calls anyone who favors small business), etc. On and on without end the insults, attacks, and stupid ridiculous intentional misconstrument of arguments, made all the more silly because they obviously never read a single post. The funny thing is when you mirror them, giving them back exactly what they do right down to copying their writing style... OMG they whine and cry and (likely) PM the mods. It's fsckin' pathetic, you realize they don't even read their own.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: mect
Do people in here even read the posts anymore or just form a reply based on who posted. No one has been advocating anarchy. They have been advocating a system where the government does not run programs, but rather oversees and intervenes if rules aren't followed.

Edit for actually typing something.

They don't actually have any logical or reasonable arguments beyond bitterness, pessimism, and hate, so the only thing they can do is resort to mischaracterizations, straw men, and personal attacks. People who don't agree with their system of total and complete government control (which they advocate because they foolishly believe that democracy will empower them under such a system) are "blinded," "maladjusted freaks" (Steeplerot called me that when I said I liked the Canadian progressive rock band, Rush, believe it or not), "ideologues" (says the pompous nut who argues that the Democratic party is perfect and without corruption because, supposedly, according to him, they don't take special interest contributions), "corporatists" (that's what conjur calls anyone who favors small business), etc. On and on without end the insults, attacks, and stupid ridiculous intentional misconstrument of arguments, made all the more silly because they obviously never read a single post. The funny thing is when you mirror them, giving them back exactly what they do right down to copying their writing style... OMG they whine and cry and (likely) PM the mods. It's fsckin' pathetic, you realize they don't even read their own.

10 people can read the same story and have 10 different interpertations. That doesn't mean 9 are wrong. You aren't any different then anyone else here, you push the view that you believe is the best. Of course it's just a coincidence that your view also happens to be the best for you finacually.

I'd also point out that it seems to me that you have started just as many flame fests as the next guy, so pot, kettle, black. Heck, your whole post was basically a thinly disgusied inflammatory rant... you even threw some names thrown in for good measure.

Healthcare costs are a problem in this country and the problem has been growing for litteralley decades. Eventually someone, somehow has got to tackle the problem and with the healtcare industry lobby being so rich and powerful these days I think we've gooten to the point that the only way to get costs under control is to socialize medicine.

As far as I'm concerned, the healthcare industires greed has brought this on themselves. If they can't fix the problem then the people will, because the people need AFFORDABLE health care.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: Vic
Excellent article.

Agreed. Thanks for sharing, OP.