US Repubs budget plan: slash and privatize Social Security and Medicare

[The Bear's Key]

But, our 'free market, capitalism', ranks #1 in productivity, which is the essence of efficiency. Give Health Care back to the private sector (in most part was to 1965), and our cost/statistics (if your concern) will go back to what led the world's in those days and I might add was a fraction of today's cost per GDP.

So Europeans with comparable wages, more unions, regulation, government competition, and with a fair share of taxes, keep healthcare costs down and health quality up.

 

Fix the contradiction.

 

But, our 'free market, capitalism', ranks #1 in productivity, which is the essence of efficiency.

Here's a tip: it's #1 in efficiency generally for the wealthy. Check the poor's quality of healthcare visits against the poor in other nations.

 

 

Econ 101; The consumer drives the Capitalist System.

As does government.

 

 

It was not Government Aeronautics, but designers/planner/engineers working in concert with private industry.

Or, by your same incomplete reasoning it was not private industry, but them working in concert with designers/planner/engineers and Government Aeronautics.

 

How many to tango?

 

 

Aside from that many issue, falling under 'preventative' are already part of insurance and Government medical cost. Pregnant Women, to victims of Heart Decease, Cancer, Diabetics or any number of problems, are routinely advised and seen....

Preventative care is more to help keep them from becoming victims, not something to be given only after the fact.

 

Life expectancy, in Hawaii for instance rivals any Nation on the planet

Most any nation, or all of them? Doesn't matter. The reason for it seems clearly the result of the Hawaii Prepaid Health Care Act. For the 5% uninsured, help might be available with their government's HHCS organization.

 

where Blacks in Mississippi, are not much better than any third world Country.

How so? If true, why?

 

As for the average cost of Unionized Labor versus Non-Union; If your saying there is none, I wouldn't know how to argue, it's simply more costly. In the case of Auto Workers, Teamsters, Teacher Unions and Government Unions, the long term (retirement packages) it can be twice the cost as to those not in a Union or much more.

I was just using the stats you provided to reveal how a right-to-work area can end up paying high wages.

 

 

Since Government produces no income

and dependent on YOU for it's entire existence/revenue

but have multiple choices from the private sector, that strives to satisfy you...

My friend, those reasonings are utterly out of context, flawed, and twisted.

 

Government provides a system of copyrights, trademarks, and patents, for the improvement of society -- more than for any business itself. Had the government failed to supply those, and corporations weren't daily granted permission to exist, you likely wouldn't see the exlosion of goods and services of the level available in modern times.

 

Business is entirely dependent on YOU -- and US -- for its entire existence/revenue. They are nothing without us....neither is government. We can exist fine without both of them, never the other way around.

 

Individuals/groups from the private sector also strive to take power over you, society, and our money -- twisting law to do so. Private business/enterprise is often involved behind the corrupt things government does.

 

Income's merely energy in paper and/or digital form. We trade work hours essentially, usually for the work hours others put into tradeable stuff, and/or for desired possessions/goods. Business has existed long before the U.S. and conservatives, it won't ever go away. Neither will government. However, if they did, we'll still continue our existence. But if we disappeared, they'd vanish as well.

[Phi for All]

npts; In this case, I have to ask you, the all important question. Since Government produces no income and dependent on YOU for it's entire existence/revenue, why would you wish to pay them, to make a decision for you, that you might better make for your self?

Because I'm just one person who isn't necessarily representative of my society as a whole. I acknowledge that a representative governing body is needed to ensure that my views are incorporated with other members of my society.

 

Remember your dependent on ONE Federal Government, that can change direction every two years, but have multiple choices from the private sector, that strives to satisfy you, if not accomplished, you can make another choice.

My ideal federal government would be one that strives to represent me and my fellow members of society, NOT the private sector business interests that are interested only in profiting from me. When too much governmental control is given to those business concerns, satisfying me begins to lose its importance to profit alone. The bigger a business becomes, the less competition it has and the less concerned with quality and satisfaction it has to be (*cough* Microsoft *cough*).

[npts2020]

npts; In this case, I have to ask you, the all important question. Since Government produces no income and dependent on YOU for it's entire existence/revenue, why would you wish to pay them, to make a decision for you, that you might better make for your self? Remember your dependent on ONE Federal Government, that can change direction every two years, but have multiple choices from the private sector, that strives to satisfy you, if not accomplished, you can make another choice.

 

With all of the responses above I feel kind of like I am piling on but would like to comment anyway. The reason I would entrust a government (definitely not our current one) to make decisions for me is the same reason I would see a doctor about my health or a car manufacturer (via a dealer) to obtain transport. I would expect either of those entities to know more about what I am going to them for than I know about the subject myself and what I don't know or understand I can ask enough questions to cure my ignorance. An openly democratic government would work much the same way.

[Pangloss]

The reason I would entrust a government (definitely not our current one) to make decisions for me is the same reason I would see a doctor about my health or a car manufacturer (via a dealer) to obtain transport. I would expect either of those entities to know more about what I am going to them for than I know about the subject myself and what I don't know or understand I can ask enough questions to cure my ignorance.

 

Would you trust your government to balance your check book?

[jackson33]

With all of the responses above I feel kind of like I am piling on but would like to comment anyway. [/Quote]

 

npts; I have been posting here over three years, believe me if that bothered me, I really could be doing other things.

 

The reason I would entrust a government (definitely not our current one) to make decisions for me is the same reason I would see a doctor about my health or a car manufacturer (via a dealer) to obtain transport.[/Quote]

 

You have emphasized , the most important argument I have to oppose UHC and why Insurers can be trusted. An insurers representative, most likely lives in your neighborhood, or has an office in your town, you can reach that representative in seconds, over the phone and that one person may have 25 to 100 families he/she is personally responsible to. He/she is a direct link, to the board of directors of your choice for health insurance and it's usage, if needed. Governments closest thing to direct contact is whoever your House Member may be, does have an office in their district (7 States that means anyplace in the entire State) but can be representing over a million people, all have at least 700k. Even if your a personal friend of the local House Member, he/she may not be there, currently 10 months from today, your insurance agent will be there.

 

Because I'm just one person who isn't necessarily representative of my society as a whole. I acknowledge that a representative governing body is needed to ensure that my views are incorporated with other members of my society.[/Quote]

 

Phil' Your society is first your family, followed by, where you work, your town or city, maybe the County and State. People that live in these places, following the line, probably have more in common with you than those in Rhode Island, NJ or any of the other 49 States. I'll add the cost of HC, in Colorado, is probably less than most States and imagine the quality better, generally Mountain States tend to be healthier. Your views, on the other hand, should NOT be part of their systems...IMO.

 

My ideal federal government would be one that strives to represent me and my fellow members of society, NOT the private sector business interests that are interested only in profiting from me. [/Quote]

 

Your Federal Government, was set up to represent your State and its people, not specifically each individual. You have Congressional Members that do this, and have chose who these people are. Private Sector Business cannot exist, without public acceptance to begin with, whether purchasing products/service or investment in their operations.

 

So Europeans with comparable wages, more unions, regulation, government competition, and with a fair share of taxes, keep healthcare costs down and health quality up.

 

Fix the contradiction. [/Quote]

 

Bear; No contradiction, to fix; What's broke in the system is governments current involvement of 1/3rd, the 310 Million people, that's 100 Million and just which country handles more than this?

 

Here's a tip: it's #1 in efficiency generally for the wealthy. Check the poor's quality of healthcare visits against the poor in other nations. [/Quote]

 

I'd rather not start running down other National Policy, it's the apparent choice of a majority and none of my business. However I feel sure each system has some problems.

 

As for our "poor", I doubt you will find any person qualified for US Medicaid (note AID), would complain about their medical attention....

 

I'm not sure what patents have to do with Capitalism, but the consumer represents 70% of the consumption, in the US, which drive Companies to thrive, cruise or die out.

 

How so? If true, why? [/Quote]

 

I gave you the list, for State Averages. I'm not getting involved with genetics, life style or other things that may be involved. The comments were in reference to 'geographic's, Mississippi being in the South.

 

Because I'm not an anarchist; I believe government is a necessary evil. I make daily use of government services. The government provides a stable environment in which I can carry out my day-to-day life. If my life situation were to change... if I were to lose my job or become disabled, the government provides services to mitigate the changes in my life associated with those problems. The government provides numerous pooled risk mitigation systems which I'm glad exist, even though I'm not currently making use of many of them. [/Quote]

 

bascule; If your "life situation were to change", is it the responsibility of your neighbor to pick up the slack. The Federal, simply can't protect or guarantee all 310 Million peoples welfare from pre-natal to the burial plot. I could give you a long list of 'risk takers', those that failed twice to several times in business, that with out help, picked themselves to later succeed. I could also give a list of those that failed, gave up and died poor. I don't care if the person is 61 (person in mind) or 80, while breathing there is always the possibility of success in a Free Market Capitalist System....If anything government has created a dependency class of people, assume in Europe as well, but certainly in the US, which to me is more destructive than any failure.

 

What are you talking about, Jackson? Saying that the government produces no income and depends on the public for its income is rather foolish: taxes ARE INCOME derived from the social contract in exchange for services and protection. All man made institutions rely on people and other institutions for their income. [/Quote]

 

bob, I'll try answering this in reverse. If everyone worked for government, where would that revenue (opposed in income) come from? For any economy to grow, there must be innovation and risk takers to bring new products/service to the market and Government over history has never succeeded in doing this.

 

Yes, I do believe HC or at least HC Insurance could be made more affordable with competition, and the point, without decreasing quality or quantity. As for SS, there were three Counties in Texas that Government Workers opted out, while still a choice, think early 70's and are today receiving four/five times the retirement income, created through the private sector...

 

As for "this financial crisis"; We have had many over the years in the US and IMO this one should have been no worse than the Tech Bubble Burst in 2000. However it involves a laundry list of events going back to the mid-sixties and would probably bore you. What I did learn is government has no business in trying to manipulate the economy....

[bob000555]

Your initial claim was the government produces no income and “proved” this by proving that there would be a problem if everyone worked for the government? You still have yet to provide any evidence for your initial claim and your attempt at support is ridiculous. The same criticism could be levied at almost any organization: if everyone worked for Goldman Sachs from whence would Goldman derive its income?

 

For any economy to grow, there must be innovation and risk takers to bring new products/service to the market and Government over history has never succeeded in doing this.

 

This is flat out ridiculous. Innovations for which you can thank the United States Government include: space travel (NASA, the Apollo project. Operation Paperclip), the internet( DARPA), the sequencing of the human genome (National Institutes of Health), nuclear weapons and nuclear power( Manhattan Project), the particle accelerators and new elements discovered at Lawrence National lab funded by the Department of Energy and countless other innovations in which the government was less involved but would probably have never happened with out government funding.

 

However it involves a laundry list of events going back to the mid-sixties and would probably bore you.

 

The proper response when you are losing an argument is not to become condescending and vague. Lets here your chain of events where the financial crisis was caused more by government interference then by deregulation. I love to hear alternate versions of history from conservatives.

 

I would also appreciate it if you responded to my post in your thread about the “radio tax.”

[Pangloss]

I love to hear alternate versions of history from conservatives.

 

Hmm, I dunno, I think alternate versions of history from liberals are far more entertaining. But hey, to each his own I guess.

[npts2020]

Would you trust your government to balance your check book?

 

Like Jackson33 highlighted, not the current one. Having said that, I will assert that you are far more likely to change government than capitalism and feel comfortable that nobody can prove me wrong.