Universal Health Coverage

[ParanoiA]

You're just not seeing the big picture, or you have not read all of my posts. By forcing the issue, you are enforcing payment through taxes, eliminating costs, promoting efficiency. Plus, if someone wants to buy medical insurance for a higher standard of care at a better hospital, then it would only make sense to be able to deduct the same medicare costs from your health insurance, giving you exactly what you pay for. Of course, this is all very premature, as nobody is even discussing this on a federal level.

 

But their taxes won't go up. There is no way in hell their taxes are going up 300 bucks a month. Pre or post mature it makes no difference. The rest of your paragraph reads like privitized medicine and in a way, the status quo. You say we can spend our own money to upgrade our level of care. So what do you think is going to happen with the "generic" level? And how is that any different than sending the poor to the free clinic today, while I go to a carpeted and air conditioned doctor's office?

 

Without the dramatic expense, healthcare can be far more reasonable. Personally, I've been on the hunt for what I'm calling "Catastrophic Health Insurance". Insurance to be accessed for horrendous medical expenses only - heart bypass, cancer treatment and etc. This insurance should be fairly cheap, considering it's only for catastrophies. With the benefit of falling prices pending removal of unreasonable (and market corrupting) regulation, I can pay for my own doctor visits with no HMO nor government handout - nothing.

 

You have to wonder about a service that most people have to have insurance for ANY little access to it. Think about that. You don't tap into your car's auto insurance claims to change the tires or give it a tune up. But every little trip to the doctor's office requires an insurance claim. We shouldn't need to tap into insurance unless we're really freaking broken.

 

To me, that's the problem - the costs. Not, how we're going to make everyone pay them. It isn't that 16% that's causing an aspirin to cost 25 bucks.

[Sisyphus]

ParanoiA, all I'm hearing from you is kneejerk "government can't do anything right" dogma (and it is dogma, as anything is once it's applied in all cases in lieu of considering situations individually), and no addressing of the empirical fact that in places where they do have universal healthcare, they pay less (not just "losers," everyone), because less money is spent, not because the care is inferior, but because it's more efficient, because the administrative costs are far lower. By cold, hard pragmatism, it is the superior option.

 

So why shouldn't we do it? Because "we've chosen capitalism?" Why does it have to be all or nothing? Why can't we pick and choose which aspects and methods actually work better? For that matter, how can we justify not doing so?

[ParanoiA]

ParanoiA, all I'm hearing from you is kneejerk "government can't do anything right" dogma (and it is dogma, as anything is once it's applied in all cases in lieu of considering situations individually)

 

It's not knee-jerk. But it is dogma, using the 'principled' definition of the word. It's an ideological position based on appreciation for the free market and the principle of fair taxation. It's not that the government "can't do anything right", it's that they can't compete with the free market. When people are free to say "screw you, I'm going somewhere else", it naturally places the burdens where they belong and we get better service and price.

 

Socialist systems don't motivate anybody. No reward for working hard. No reward for efficiency. No reward for quality. No reward. People work as good as they feel like it, not as good as they can. Most of us get their second or third best effort, which is why everything related to the government is slow and sloppy.

 

So, you're right in that it's the mere "idea" of the government running it that turns my stomach. We have plenty of examples in place today. Systems that pale in comparison to Healthcare - look at Education and Welfare. Boy, those are two proud examples of government beaurocracy. Welfare has only gotten worse and education is a joke - I think we rank 25th in the world, under some third world countries, in education.

 

and no addressing of the empirical fact that in places where they do have universal healthcare, they pay less (not just "losers," everyone), because less money is spent, not because the care is inferior, but because it's more efficient, because the administrative costs are far lower. By cold, hard pragmatism, it is the superior option.

 

Where is the empirical evidence of socialized medicine spending less money with more efficient and good quality care?

 

Lines and unreasonable waiting lists, such as the one my Canadian co-worker's father is on for a kidney surgery (6 months he told me, still waiting right now...) doesn't count as cost reductive efficiency. I have yet to hear any cold, hard pragmatism considering socialized medicine.

[john5746]

You have to wonder about a service that most people have to have insurance for ANY little access to it. Think about that. You don't tap into your car's auto insurance claims to change the tires or give it a tune up. But every little trip to the doctor's office requires an insurance claim. We shouldn't need to tap into insurance unless we're really freaking broken.

 

To me, that's the problem - the costs. Not, how we're going to make everyone pay them. It isn't that 16% that's causing an aspirin to cost 25 bucks.

 

That's a good point. One difference though. If your car breaks down and you have no money, it gets trashed. If a poor person breaks down, we pay for it. So its kinda like pay now or pay later.

 

I don't see the point in covering breast implants and viagra.

[JohnB]

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

 

We have both Private and Public Hospitals. Both will treat emergencies, with or without insurance.

 

Down here we pay an extra 1.5% Federal Income Tax as the Medicare Levy. This money is then returned to the State Govts to help pay for healthcare. The system is reasonably cost efficient with admin costs of A$900 M for the disbursement of around A$35 Bill, say 3.5% admin costs. Certainly not highly inefficient.

 

For that, I go to the quack and pay $50 for the consultation, I then get around $35 back from Medicare. I had a CT Scan today. Cost $390 and $204 back from Medicare so I'm out of pocket $186. That's cool, I wanted the scan.

 

Now if someone has private health insurance, then they claim 30% of the cost back as a tax rebate. If you want plastic surgery (Except for reconstructive surgery) then you need private insurance but for most things medical treatment is easily available at no cost to the patient.

 

Last year my appendix ruptured. I walked into the Casualty Dept at Royal Brisbane at around 10 AM and before 2 PM I was watching the lights go pretty colours in the OR. That's what I pay my levy for.

 

Australia is in the process (actually I think we're just about finished) of vaccinating (for free) every woman between 12 and 26 for the Human Papilloma Virus. Because of this, we can expect our incidence of Cervical Cancer to drop by 70%. That's what we pay the levy for.

 

Yes, we do have waiting lists and people do get bumped. Operations here are done on the triage system. If your condition is not acute, then we will treat the acute patients first, if it becomes acute you move to the top of the list.

 

We do have problems. Mainly a lack of good Doctors or an over abundance of fools, take your pick. One incompetent surgeon can cause enough trouble in 10 minutes to keep 3 competent ones busy in the OR for hours. I would expect the rest of the Western World to have similar problems.

[ParanoiA]

Why does it have to be all or nothing?

 

We have both Private and Public Hospitals. Both will treat emergencies, with or without insurance.

 

My contention is that things the government doesn't bother itself with stays reasonable. If the government started manufacturing chocolate bars, they would be 10 bucks a piece and would be dry and flaky.

 

The problem I see with government getting in on something like this, is that it creates a low bar of competition. A government run agency or program doesn't compete with private institutions - well not really anyway. So if some government run hospital sucks, the private hospital nearby only has to better than them. So, while competition does a small bit of service, it's potential is not realized in the least.

 

However, if that government hospital were privately run, then they'd both compete more completely, realizing the better potential for care and efficiency. I believe this happens on a local level, although dynamically a bit more complex than I'm letting on.

 

Also, consider what standards and regulations do. This is a big problem that I think people overlook way too much.

 

The day the federal government came up with standardized tests is the day education took a fall, previously stumbling backward already. Now, the only thing the schools teach is what is directly on that test - the bare minimum. That's what federal eforcement of parity and standardization of the union buys you - the lowest common denominator. Now, private schools can lower their standards because they can easily master those tests, and now that becomes a barometer of their performance, not actual results.

 

Before they may have had to actually teach your kids some things you'd be impressed with, but there was no standardized test in order to measure this. Now, they have this standardized bar, low to the ground, easy for private institutions to master, a struggle for state run institutions - but neither is as impressive as otherwise could, and should be.

 

The same is true for Healthcare and weighty regulations. Many of these laws that we think have good intentions, actually create the socialist-like system we have in place today. Consider how insurance works, HMO's, the costs of drugs and care, lack of "out of network" choice, procedures covered and not covered - that whole mess is exactly like a government program. Fueled by law, it's a kind of socialized bubble within a capitalist framework. And gee...ain't it interesting that nobody likes it and everyone is calling it a failure?

 

Again, both sounds good on paper, but I don't see it working as good as it could if we would quit punishing business like it's 'evil until proven otherwise'. And it doesn't address the real problem - I would like to see the price for medicine and care fall, not change how we afford it.

[ecoli]

I just started a class this semester called "Medicine in Society." From the first class, it looks like we're going to be learning about everything that's wrong with the US's health care system, from a social perspective. I'll make relevant posts when the class starts up in earnest.

 

I hope the prof. doesn't blindly support universal health care though, and we talk about positives and negatives of that as well.

[ParanoiA]

I just started a class this semester called "Medicine in Society." From the first class, it looks like we're going to be learning about everything that's wrong with the US's health care system, from a social perspective. I'll make relevant posts when the class starts up in earnest.

 

I hope the prof. doesn't blindly support universal health care though, and we talk about positives and negatives of that as well.

 

That's pretty interesting. I'd personally like an in depth look at regulations and laws concerning drug companies and so forth - look at the historical picture, how these laws came to be. It's not like private medicine was cute and innocent and full of promise and wonder until the big bad government got involved - there are reasons for this involvement.

[geoguy]

As I've stated, we lived in the USA and the medical coverage our company paid for was fine.

 

My concern with private insurance is the way it's offered in the USA....often through employers. It's a job benefit. Some colleagues in the USA are at times restrained in options in life because of a dependence on work provided insurance. Especially if they have a medical issue in the family. One fellow had a son with cerebral palsy and his wife developed M.S. Since these conditions were after he was employed by an energy company, much of the financial burden was taken care of but his career amd life options are limited. He's 'stuck' in his employment situation.

 

Here in Alberta folks come from all over the western world to work in the mountains in summer and the ski hills in winter. It's revealing that Americans are either young i(n their early to mid 20's) or retired. Germans, Australians, fellow Canadians, etc. seem to 'step out' of life at any age and change course (such as come her to work for a season then off to somewhere else). Americans, in there mid 20's to retirement age, in contrast, seem to only travel or do something new when 'on vacation'...then they have to get back into the grind. One reason they are tied, in part, to their work benefits (such as health). Folks from other parts of the world can go home at any time and qualify for health benefits, maternity supplements, parental leaves of absences, etc.

 

Americans might not be best served by trying to implement universal health coverage as in the rest of the western world. It might be like trying to turn an oil tanker around in a swimming pool. But some type of mandatory pay-in scheme independent of employment might be a compromise.

[Pangloss]

"From a social perspective", huh? Don't you just love it when the catalog tells you right up front that you'll be dealing with bias in the classroom?

[PhDP]

My contention is that things the government doesn't bother itself with stays reasonable. If the government started manufacturing chocolate bars, they would be 10 bucks a piece and would be dry and flaky.

 

In my opinion, people like you are the problem, not the government You prefer to have faith in fairy tales than looking at the facts. If you truly believe what you say about chocolate bars, then perhaps you should read a little about economy and what's happening in the world.

 

It’s simply not true that the government is the solution to everything, but it’s also not true the government is unable to manage anything. Both are subjected to different forces. To simplify a little, the private sector has to face competition and the pressure to reduce costs is very high. On the other hand, a government has to be elected, and they have to be good manager to be elected. Here in Quebec, health care is the hands of the the state and improving the health care system is often #1 on the list of priorities of citizens. Competition can both be good or bad, it depends. It can force companies to spend ridiculous amount of money to beat their adversary in marketing wars, just think of how much money is spent (wasted) in the US for publicity. And it’s just absurd how much money pharmaceutical companies are pouring in their marketing departments compared to how much they spent on research.

 

The sad thing is that most debate about government programs and an increase/decrease of its involvement are dictated by two kinds of fanatics;

 

First, those who believe the government is unable to do anything, taxes should be lowered at all cost, small government are always superior to big ones, et cetera. And those who think the government is the ultimate (and only) thing capable to stop evil capitalists. Both have their saviours, it’s the market or the state.

 

Obviously, reality is more complicated. Privatization of water in Ontario was a mess (7 citizens died), it should’ve been kept in the hands of the government, privatization in the U.K. was also not a big success (prices rose by ~50% in a few years). Some state monopolies are very efficient, Hydro-Quebec is one of them, it’s a very powerful machine giving millions of dollars each year to the government, and providing cheap electricity for enterprises (something a private enterprise would not do). On the other side of the coin, privatization of water was much more positive in Argentina, and I think it was shown to have reduced mortality. There’s so many programs and regulations in a country like France that something as simple as firing an employee is complicated, hardly a good thing for the economy.

 

I’m convinced that most issues in politics have very little to do with politics, but with objectives facts. Reducing theses complex issues to “government doesn't bother itself with stays reasonable” is unreasonable. it’s just a fairy tales of conservatives, many facts prove that the governement can be very reasonable. “The incompetent government” myth is as bad as the “perfect government” myth and both has to be rejected.

[ParanoiA]

My concern with private insurance is the way it's offered in the USA....often through employers. It's a job benefit. Some colleagues in the USA are at times restrained in options in life because of a dependence on work provided insurance. Especially if they have a medical issue in the family. One fellow had a son with cerebral palsy and his wife developed M.S. Since these conditions were after he was employed by an energy company, much of the financial burden was taken care of but his career amd life options are limited. He's 'stuck' in his employment situation.

 

Oh no kidding! What a load of crap that is. That scenario is repeated to me all the time. I'm living it too. My wife's business has the potential to do really well, but she can't get good, dependable labor and it's the kind of work I did while I was going to college. I love the work, but I can't quit my corporate whore job due to the medical insurace fear.

 

The whole concept of medical insurance here is twisted. With people paying so much of their paychecks for insurance premiums, no one goes to the doctor without filing a claim. They may not realize that's what they're doing, but that's the rub. It's an insurance product that's designed to be claimed on over and over again. Think how much your auto insurance would be if you filed several claims a year on it.

 

No one is going to shell out 300 bucks a month on insurance premiums just to turn around pay cash for the doctor so they don't file a claim - that's unheard of.

 

This is that socialized bubble I was talking about. That bubble needs to be bursted.

 

The sad thing is that most debate about government programs and an increase/decrease of its involvement are dictated by two kinds of fanatics;

 

First' date=' those who believe the government is unable to do anything, taxes should be lowered at all cost, small government are always superior to big ones, et cetera. And those who think the government is the ultimate (and only) thing capable to stop evil capitalists. Both have their saviours, it’s the market or the state.[/quote']

 

And then there's the folks that continuously rechurn the ole "middle ground" poetry angle. It looks good on paper and sounds all deep and thoughtful when you attempt to pit against the two "extremes".

 

Reality is neither of the 'three' choices are any better than any one. It's all about preference. Socialist medicine works. Socialist/Capitalist hybrid works. Capitalist works. They all work. They all have their pluses and minuses.

 

No, Phil, I don't prefer a hybrid socialist/capitalist government where "Great Moderates" make history. I like capitalism. I like the advantages it will give us, and will deal with the disadvantages. Right now, the problems with our healthcare, I believe anyway, has to do with "messing with it". I'm not sure what regulation needs to go, what needs to stay and so forth - but I know it's a problem.

 

I also know that regulation destroys the function of free markets, enables monopolies that wouldn't have otherwise developed. I also know it can't be avoided, but certainly shouldn't be proliferated - which is the current climate.

[PhDP]

You don't understand my point; it has nothing, really NOTHING to do with "middle ground". I'm politically to the left and I'm proud of it, but I think that many things have nothing to do with the left or with the right; it's about facts v. denial. You said "If the government started manufacturing chocolate bars, they would be 10 bucks a piece and would be dry and flaky." It's not about "loving capitalism", on the contrary, it's about economic fairy tales, and I don't think you can justify such a radical statement without invoking some sort of faith.

[ParanoiA]

You don't understand my point; it has nothing, really NOTHING to do with "middle ground". I'm politically to the left and I'm proud of it, but I think that many things have nothing to do with the left or with the right; it's about facts v. denial. You said "If the government started manufacturing chocolate bars, they would be 10 bucks a piece and would be dry and flaky." It's not about "loving capitalism", on the contrary, it's about economic fairy tales, and I don't think you can justify such a radical statement without invoking some sort of faith.

 

Where do you get faith? Economic fairy tales? Capitalism is proven to work - there's no faith needed. Socialism has proven to work too, I'm not sure how you get faith out of any of this. Facts vs. Denial? What facts?

 

My analogy about government's inefficiency has to do with the interface to a free market. I'm not on here advocating a private military. I'm not advocating privatized police forces and FBI. There are things the government should take care of, and there are things things they should not. Healthcare belongs in the free market, in my opinion.

 

It's also about principles. I take taxation quite seriously. I believe we have a duty not to abuse the tax payers - the people. The free market is the ultimate usage sensitive payment plan. Taxes have a tendency to be levied on everyone - not just the people using a certain service or thing. That's not right nor logical. So I resist taxation and expanding government to do things that would require more taxation.

 

This is the preference thing I was getting at.

[Reaper]

Actually, the current budget deficit is surprisingly relatively low at 1.58 billion. I'm thinking that all of this extra revenue has come from fuel tax on inflated gas prices.

 

Are you sure about that? Last I checked it was in the trillions. The inflated gas prices are due to the war.

 

State's just can't afford that any more. That's the problem. In Tennessee we had something called TennCare that was about as close to state healthcare as any state had ever come and it nearly bankrupted us. The last governor had to gut it to balance the budget. People just aren't willing to pay Federal income tax to their state as well as to Washington, and that's what it would take.

 

 

That's a big part of how Bredesen 'fixed' TennCare. Now you have to be in the state for so many years before you get anything.

 

 

I don't know about the details of TennCare, but my feeling is that the Federal government isn't going to do it adequately, since it's on such a huge scale. As for taxes, the money has to come from somewhere, but as you noted people just aren't willing to pay for it.

 

Currently, we get so much taken out from the federal taxes and it still isn't enough to pay for what we already have (Roads, schools, etc).

[Pangloss]

I’m convinced that most issues in politics have very little to do with politics, but with objectives facts. Reducing theses complex issues to “government doesn't bother itself with stays reasonable” is unreasonable. it’s just a fairy tales of conservatives, many facts prove that the governement can be very reasonable. “The incompetent government” myth is as bad as the “perfect government” myth and both has to be rejected.

 

An interesting point. I would add that this interest in government involvement also varies a bit from subject to subject. Ask a liberal how much government involvement there should be on the subject of marijuana use, for example. Then ask a conservative the same question.

 

It's hard to be ideologically partisan without being a hypocrit at some level.

[john5746]

I win

[Severian]

Perhaps those supporting state run healthcare would care to point out any instance of state run healthcare which has actually provided a decent healthcare service?

[Sisyphus]

It's not knee-jerk. But it is dogma, using the 'principled' definition of the word. It's an ideological position based on appreciation for the free market and the principle of fair taxation. It's not that the government "can't do anything right", it's that they can't compete with the free market. When people are free to say "screw you, I'm going somewhere else", it naturally places the burdens where they belong and we get better service and price.

 

But I'm asking you to support those assertions. We're talking about healthcare. Your assertion is that, say, the Canadian healthcare system can't compete with the American healthcare system?

 

Socialist systems don't motivate anybody. No reward for working hard. No reward for efficiency. No reward for quality. No reward. People work as good as they feel like it, not as good as they can. Most of us get their second or third best effort, which is why everything related to the government is slow and sloppy.

 

Those are tendencies which need to be kept in line, true, but they're not insurmountable. To say that it's impossible that any government employee is accountable for anything is a bit silly, IMO, and to say that they can't be is just ridiculous. But yes, I agree that's the tendency, and I agree it's certainly not perfect. It's just better than the bullshit we have now.

 

I think we rank 25th in the world, under some third world countries, in education.

 

Interestingly, all of those countries ranked above us have more centralized, federal control of education than we do. So our problems with education are not a failure of "government," they're a failure of our government. Or rather, our governments, since the policies in public schools in America are patchworks from at least three levels of government... but that's a different discussion entirely.

 

Where is the empirical evidence of socialized medicine spending less money with more efficient and good quality care?

 

The fact that they spend a lot less and are still healthier than we are, and the fact that administrative costs make up a far higher percentage of money spent on healthcare here in the U.S. than just about anywhere else. What other definition of efficiency do you want? Isn't that supposedly the problem with government, that money is wasted on bureaucracy instead of producing a product? No, it's not conclusive, but you'd have to be pretty intentionally thickheaded not to admit it's evidence.

 

Lines and unreasonable waiting lists, such as the one my Canadian co-worker's father is on for a kidney surgery (6 months he told me, still waiting right now...) doesn't count as cost reductive efficiency. I have yet to hear any cold, hard pragmatism considering socialized medicine.

 

You can always anecdotes supporting any particular position, hence they're rarely worth much. Who doesn't know people with health insurance horror stories? Hell, I've been screwed over. And everyone I've talked to about it who's lived under both (specifically, Canada, UK, Germany, Poland, and New Zealand, as well as the U.S. for at least a few years) has been horrified by the U.S. system.

 

Perhaps those supporting state run healthcare would care to point out any instance of state run healthcare which has actually provided a decent healthcare service?

 

Define "decent," I guess. We're talking about relative merit.

[ecoli]

"From a social perspective", huh? Don't you just love it when the catalog tells you right up front that you'll be dealing with bias in the classroom?

 

In a way, I actually do. At least it's not pretending to be a 'no spin zone.' On the first day, the prof said we have a moral obligation to help people without health care

 

Although her actual economic arguments were a little more convincing.

 

Interestingly, all of those countries ranked above us have more centralized, federal control of education than we do. So our problems with education are not a failure of "government," they're a failure of our government. Or rather, our governments, since the policies in public schools in America are patchworks from at least three levels of government... but that's a different discussion entirely.

 

I wonder though... we always point to canada and europe as examples of more government control over resources like health care and education.

 

Are there any examples of foreign nations with more capitalistic control over these resources? How do charter school students perform?

[Realitycheck]

Are you sure about that? Last I checked it was in the trillions. The inflated gas prices are due to the war.

 

 

I still have not figured out why, but yes, the budget deficit is only 158 billion. Apparently, the federal gas tax levied at the pump is a set rate of 18.4 cents/gallon (as of 2005, unless it has been changed), so this is not affecting the deficit, but something is. According to the Budget Office, the long-term outlook on health costs is "daunting", even more reason to make everybody pay!

 

http://www.cbo.gov/

[ParanoiA]

But I'm asking you to support those assertions. We're talking about healthcare. Your assertion is that, say, the Canadian healthcare system can't compete with the American healthcare system?

 

I'm asserting that government can't compete with private business on things that lend themselves to a free market - most goods and services. I can use the failed american education system to support that - private schools run circles around government facilities. Perhaps that's more anecdotal, but the socialism vs capitalism dichotomy is an age old debate. I don't doubt socialism's effectiveness on things, but I simply don't prefer it. In our history, our attempts at government programs are terribly wasteful with little result.

 

The american healthcare system is not a free market system - it is polluted with junk regulation mixed with good regulation, as well as unfair tax laws that keep insurance as a benefit from employers rather than allowing individuals to shop. It's a socialist system in terms of function - it's only private in terms of who walks away with the money. The private sector is enjoying this lobsided profit dump...I am not.

 

Interestingly, all of those countries ranked above us have more centralized, federal control of education than we do. So our problems with education are not a failure of "government," they're a failure of our government. Or rather, our governments, since the policies in public schools in America are patchworks from at least three levels of government... but that's a different discussion entirely.

 

That's real cute seeing as how there's no real capitalist education system to reference. What country utilizes the free market for education?

 

Your real point here is brilliant - our capitalist leaning country sucks at socialism. Good. Let's go with what we know and what made us advance and industrialize so quickly and made us a superpower - capitalism.

 

What other definition of efficiency do you want?

 

I want an example of efficiency and good quality care. Not just one. Not just the other. Both. Waiting lists are not an example of good care - that's rotten care. The government cherry picking for me what procedures are important and what are not is not an example of good care - that's totalitarian care. I can give the semblance of efficiency by hiring one doctor and one nurse in one room to service the whole damn country - I'll only spend a couple hundred thousand dollars a year in salaries, but the line would stretch from New York to California and be littered with dead bodies - that's horrible care.

 

I want an example of a socialist healthcare system that provides quality - choice, talent and etc - and is efficient. I don't believe it exists. I believe it will exist in a truly free market healthcare system.

 

You can always anecdotes supporting any particular position, hence they're rarely worth much. Who doesn't know people with health insurance horror stories? Hell, I've been screwed over. And everyone I've talked to about it who's lived under both (specifically, Canada, UK, Germany, Poland, and New Zealand, as well as the U.S. for at least a few years) has been horrified by the U.S. system.

 

I've never met anyone horrified by the US system that lived outside of the US. Americans are the spoiled babies that cry about how bad they have everything, trying way too hard to make life way too perfect and smooth for everyone - no bumps, no trials, no hard times - just love and nurturing and perfect life from cradle to grave. I don't consider our spoiled, piggy countrymen a reputable advocate of what's horrible or not.

 

And I find it interesting that there aren't many folks in here living under socialist medicine furiously arguing in your favor. Unless I missed a post, they seem to agree that they have problems and aren't the hands down superior choice. And again, I'm not saying socialized medicine won't work - I'm saying it won't make anything any better. You're just going to swap out one set of problems for another. How is that worth the money and pain switching over? Cold, hard, pragmatism...

 

In a way, I actually do. At least it's not pretending to be a 'no spin zone.' On the first day, the prof said we have a moral obligation to help people without health care

 

We do have that obligation. However, we should do this as free citizens, not forced by our government. We have no right to enforce this obligation on anyone else. We have a right to pursuade them.

 

Are there any examples of foreign nations with more capitalistic control over these resources? How do charter school students perform?

 

Charter schools perform better, but I'm not sure by how much. That's our only option here in Kansas City, in terms of using your existing taxes to pay for a more private education facility.

 

School vouchers were defeated much to the delight of the Teacher's Union. So, my money continues to be stolen from me and spent on other people's kids to get a psuedo education. And because I don't have any money left for my kids, I have to send them to the same shitty facility.

 

Thank you socialism. No choice. No freedom.

 

You should watch John Stossel's "Stupid in America" on Youtube. It's about 45 minutes and they cover the whole private school, charter school, public school subject. It's truly sad...

[Pangloss]

In a way, I actually do. At least it's not pretending to be a 'no spin zone.' On the first day, the prof said we have a moral obligation to help people without health care

 

Although her actual economic arguments were a little more convincing.

 

Cherish classes like that. Nothing is more interesting than a professor who's off the reservation.

 

I once took a class on "US History Since 1865" at Georgia Tech which was taught by a guest professor from one of the nearby black universities. He spent the first half of the class talking about slavery (yes, in a class about US history SINCE 1865!), and the second half of the class talking about the civil rights movement! Nothing about two world wars, Vietnam, the technological or industrial revolutions, etc etc etc. But it was a great class! Really prime stuff. This guy'd actually LIVED it, and was more than happy to share. Turned out to be one of the best courses I ever took.

 

Second place would have to go to a course I took on the physics of space and time taught by the famous David Finkelstein. He wasn't just off the reservation -- I think they gave him his own little bit of the space-time continuum to commute from. But holy cow -- every lecture was like the best episode of Nova you've ever seen.

 

Funny thing is, those are about the only two courses I even remember taking at that vaunted institution.

[iNow]

I'm asserting that government can't compete with private business on things that lend themselves to a free market - most goods and services. I can use the failed american education system to support that - private schools run circles around government facilities.

<...>

The american healthcare system is not a free market system - it is polluted with junk regulation mixed with good regulation, as well as unfair tax laws that keep insurance as a benefit from employers rather than allowing individuals to shop. It's a socialist system in terms of function - it's only private in terms of who walks away with the money. The private sector is enjoying this lobsided profit dump...I am not.

<...>

I want an example of a socialist healthcare system that provides quality - choice, talent and etc - and is efficient.

<...>

School vouchers were defeated much to the delight of the Teacher's Union. So, my money continues to be stolen from me and spent on other people's kids to get a psuedo education. And because I don't have any money left for my kids, I have to send them to the same shitty facility.

 

Thank you socialism. No choice. No freedom.

 

You should watch John Stossel's "Stupid in America" on Youtube. It's about 45 minutes and they cover the whole private school, charter school, public school subject. It's truly sad...

 

Brilliant post, Paranoia. I could not agree with you more. How does offering up a government run monopoly help anyone but those having their pockets lined by it? We need to improve the regulation based on the needs of the masses, not the needs of the corporation or political power voting on said regulation.

 

Again, your post was passionate and on point, and I thank you for it. Also, thank you for the head's up on the following video:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA

 

 

 

Here's another rather interesting film for those so inclined as to watch:

 

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FA50FBC214A6CE87

 

 

 

How long must we do things wrong before we change as a culture and stop repeating the same mistakes?

[CPL.Luke]

just chiming in on the budget deficit issue, currently the government deficit is running at about 40-50% of the gdp (about 8-9 trillion dollars) and climing fast, by no means an unprecedented level, but still not very good.

 

its interesting to see how the debt breaks down, once you add in things like social debt (social security etc.) the debt jumps to about 58 trillion dollars.

 

also of the 8 trillion dollars the government owes directly china owns 1.5 trillion. hence why we never reevaluate our exchange rate with them.