Please reference historical economic disasters that were the solely the result of capitalism. Do not include those, such as our current financial mess, that had significant government culpability.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here. You have just stated exactly why a government based system will fail...because it will generate losses, and require subsidies, just like all the other government programs like Medicare and Social Security, which have failed and are already insolvent.
The truth is, the only system that will not operate at a deficit is a system that allows the individual to choose care for himself (or not.)
Last edited by a moderator:
ferider
Veteran
That works because more percentage of your health care costs end up with the doctors and nurses.
Remember: as I said above, per person, in the US, prior to the upcoming reform, more money is already now spent on health-care in the US than in Canada, Germany, France, or any other country. Why ? Is the health care better ?
Taxes and costs per consumer monotonically increase in the US. I am always amazed at audits not being considered part of a reform, be it health care, public schools, etc. As would be common for a public company.
Last edited:
How many stories are there of people waiting for weeks and/or months for care, only to come to the US and be treated immediately?
Check out the movie "The Barbarian Invasions."
wgerrard
Veteran
Look, I'd done with this. It's like arguing with John Birchers or Young Pioneers.
Human history shows without doubt that wealth and power, in the absence of any countervailing pressure or force, always accrues to a smaller and smaller number of people. Such power is always destructive.
That is why the right's anti-government, libertarian, unrestrained market approach to structuring society cannot be allowed in practice. it removes the countervailing pressure that is needed to push back against the basic human instinct to aggrandize ourselves at the expense of others.
In a modern technological society, in which people demand goods and services that can be delivered only by a few powerful corporations, the only entity strong enough to exert that countervailing force is the government. Individual human decisions and actions, even in the aggregate, are inadequate.
Human history shows without doubt that wealth and power, in the absence of any countervailing pressure or force, always accrues to a smaller and smaller number of people. Such power is always destructive.
That is why the right's anti-government, libertarian, unrestrained market approach to structuring society cannot be allowed in practice. it removes the countervailing pressure that is needed to push back against the basic human instinct to aggrandize ourselves at the expense of others.
In a modern technological society, in which people demand goods and services that can be delivered only by a few powerful corporations, the only entity strong enough to exert that countervailing force is the government. Individual human decisions and actions, even in the aggregate, are inadequate.
Bill, too bad. You didn't provide any examples to back up your positions. I respect your opinions, but just disagree with them. I agree that unrestrained power is not a good thing, which is why I don't want the government to have it. We have already lost too many freedoms as it is. Good day. 
ferider
Veteran
That sure works well for gas prices, Bill, don't you think ?
Government control only works if there are no financial and publicity links.
Last edited:
climbing_vine
Well-known
Bill, too bad. You didn't provide any examples to back up your positions. I respect your opinions, but just disagree with them. I agree that unrestrained power is not a good thing, which is why I don't want the government to have it. We have already lost too many freedoms as it is. Good day.
Neither have you, but unfortunately you don't have common sense and the entirety of human history on your side so the lack is somewhat more glaring.
gdi
Veteran
Excellent points all.
But it should be evident that there are viewpoints that are irreconcilable between the far left/single payer advocates others ( moderates as well as far right constituencies. ) The discussion becomes unproductive venting when it crosses over from consideration of facts to simple but unsupportable personal beliefs.
The lines are drawn, the facts are available, and at this point the various extremes cannot be swayed. The most either side can do is try to influence their legislators to come to their view.
We should see soon enough what comes of reform. Personally, I think we will have something very similar to the current senate bill, though the government option may be a triggered solution. But with the maneuvering on both sides and the promise of payoffs/bribes anything at all could happen.
I wish everyone well and good health!
emraphoto
Veteran
it is not that simple of a topic. there is and needs to be a list of priorities and as a result there ends up being folks who choose to not wait out that priority list. the common argument that the Canadian system is in a state of disrepair as a result of this rather skewed bit of information is specious.
i have had 1 occasion where i have had to wait longer than two hours in my entire experience with Canada's healthcare program. this includes all the times with my wife or any of my 4 children.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Do you expect schools to make a profit, too?
By your argument, schools should be (a) profitable and (b) not compulsory.
Cheers,
R.
I think if you look at my posts, you'll see plenty of examples and links. They apparently speak for themselves since no one has disputed them.
How long has socialized medicine existed out of entire human history? Hmm.
wgerrard
Veteran
Gas prices? What does that have to do with my point?
When I say wealth and power are destructive, I mean of our rights and our liberties. The only way to avoid accretion of wealth and power in the few is create a countervailing force that can prevent them from exerting that power and controlling our behavior.
The right argues that individual choices, in the aggregate, can provide that countervailing force. I don't believe that, at least in the case of modern technological societies.
The right worries about government control -- even in a democracy -- while ignoring the predations of the corporate entities that fund it.
When I say wealth and power are destructive, I mean of our rights and our liberties. The only way to avoid accretion of wealth and power in the few is create a countervailing force that can prevent them from exerting that power and controlling our behavior.
The right argues that individual choices, in the aggregate, can provide that countervailing force. I don't believe that, at least in the case of modern technological societies.
The right worries about government control -- even in a democracy -- while ignoring the predations of the corporate entities that fund it.
wgerrard
Veteran
I don't dispute a lot of arguments made by the little kids in my neighborhood, either.
>>"How long has socialized medicine existed out of entire human history? Hmm."
A perfect example.
Actually, yes, I believe private enterprise can do better than government in nearly every circumstance. This is proven in private education many times over.
As a practical matter, the US does not have compulsory education. We even have 'graduates' that can't read.
bmattock
Veteran
The Constitution, as I said, is not a document that grants rights. It is a list of delineation of responsibilities and prohibitions on the federal government. Universal healthcare is not a responsibility of the federal government, and it is enjoined from interfering in the power which resides with the states.
You do not understand (or you are intentionally disregarding) the fact that the Bill of Rights is actually nothing of the sort. It does not grant rights, it prohibits the federal government from infringing on certain rights. Therefore, one does need government permission or an amendment to enjoy a game of baseball, but the government cannot infringe on the (for example) right to freedom of speech. The Bill of Rights doesn't say what we citizens have rights to do, it says what the federal government cannot do.
We call the most basic of those rights 'civil liberties' and the government is bound to protect them. Healthcare has not been defined as one of those rights to which we are entitled, and as such, the federal government has neither the mandate nor the power to grant it; especially when it interferes with one of our most basic human rights, the 'right to be left alone'.
If we as a nation decide to amend the constitution to define health care as a basic right, then we also empower the federal government to provide it. If we do that, then I have no qualms with nationalizing our health care system, but I would hope it would be done by utterly dismantling the broken system we now have and replacing it with something that is designed from the ground up to be run by the government.
If we as a nation do not make such a determination, and do not so amend the Constitution, then I want the federal government to get out of my wallet, get out of my life, and leave me alone. This is a fundamental right - and a defined one - that liberals seem to have a serious problem grasping. I have no desire to run your life, but you can't seem to get over your need to control mine.
climbing_vine
Well-known
The internet is full of crazy **** and propaganda. Throwing links around without making a cogent argument is worthless. Try harder next time.
Apparently you think that when a bunch of people with money and power call themselves a "government", they are abusive and wasteful, but when the same people with money and power call themselves a "corporation" they are not. History amply demonstrates that this is silly. Among thousands of examples without a single countervailing instance, you might want to read about the.... oh, let's say, The East India Company. For starters.
ferider
Veteran
You are not considering how elections work, and are financed.
wgerrard
Veteran
Bill, I know what the Constitution is. I just don't follow your logic in arguing that an amendment is necessary to permit health care reform. Health care reform is about expanding our ability to exercise our rights, not restricting them.
If my statements are so easy to refute, do so. But not with sophomoric responses like 'this is a lie and delusion.' How about some real facts with links from trusted sources (you pick 'em!) to back it up?
How about we start with this one: is Medicare insolvent? How much in the hole is it? How much fraud, waste, and abuse was there last year in Medicare? How about google 'obama medicare fraud' and see what comes up? Feel free to post your results.
Oh, that is, unless you are done with the thread, as you indicated earlier.
wgerrard
Veteran
Yes, oil companies finance politicians. That should be illegal.
I still don't see the relevance.