Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Personally I think that we need less laws, bailouts, and socialized whatever. People we are not intitled to ANYTHING, so shut the fuck up and say that humans are intitled to food, water, shelter, or what have you because WE ARE NOT! We have to earn everything we have or we will get sloopy. It's not a fun road getting off some artificial high of "neccassity". Government ran businesses and such are always of the lowest quality of said product and your better off getting something private or not owned by the government because they have to WORK not EXTORT! This law is actually universal to anything. The government is merely a religous insitution that people "tithe" to.

---

At 9/2/09 04:07 PM, Masterzakk wrote: Government ran businesses and such are always of the lowest quality of said product and your better off getting something private or not owned by the government because they have to WORK not EXTORT!

But free market health care DOES extort, and that's the root of the problem. If you're healthy, private insurers are happy to take your money; but the moment you become a liability (i.e. sick), the expenses skyrocket. When you become a loss instead of a profit, insurers will try to boot you if they can, and if you have a pre-existing condition it'll be hell trying to find a new insurer. And you can't not buy insurance, because as expensive as it is, the alternative of paying your bills out of pocket is a non-option in comparison. And no insurance company I know of is in market competition for being the most affordable choice for the chronically ill.

Basically, there's no fiscally and socially viable option in the current system for those of us in constant need of care - either you prioritize the economy, and people pay for insurance they can barely afford (not even speaking to those who can't afford it at all), or you prioritize the public, and the government has to rely on tax money to ease the burden, socialized medicine or otherwise. And there's a lot of employers who no longer provide insurance because of just how expensive it's become. Universal health care isn't a great idea, but 100% free-market care is just as bad, if not worse.

So unless someone here has an idea that's fiscally responsible AND socially beneficial, this discussion isn't headed anywhere.

---

At 9/2/09 06:14 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

But free market health care DOES extort, and that's the root of the problem. If you're healthy, private insurers are happy to take your money; but the moment you become a liability (i.e. sick), the expenses skyrocket. When you become a loss instead of a profit, insurers will try to boot you if they can, and if you have a pre-existing condition it'll be hell trying to find a new insurer.

For one: The reason why these Private Insurers have such a hold is because they operate with the Government (ie. hundreds of millions in subsides).

Also, you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about sky-rocketting costs while complaining that they don't accept pre-existing conditions.

Because if they did accept pre-existing conditions then that means no one would have to pay into a pool of insurance until the just after they realize they need a major operation.

And that would send the costs really through the roof.

---

At 9/2/09 06:26 PM, Memorize wrote: For one: The reason why these Private Insurers have such a hold is because they operate with the Government (ie. hundreds of millions in subsides).

A little elaboration, if you would be so kind? Where do these subsidies go, how does it perpetuate the problem, and how would health care be different without it?

Also, you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about sky-rocketting costs while complaining that they don't accept pre-existing conditions.

True. But I wasn't complaining about the cost itself - an insurer needs more money to compensate for the loss in buying their client's medications, which although an inconvenience is something I could live with. Better to pay more for help from your insurance than not have an insurance company to help you when they go bankrupt. But when, after paying the extra expenses over a number of years, you are told that for one reason or another the company is no longer willing to insure you - that's when I have a problem. Prescriptions and doctor visits are still expensive, possibly beyond affordability, and it's economically unsound for another insurer to take losses for you without having received any profit first.

I'm not saying I have the solution right now. I don't. But the problem is still there, and ignoring it won't solve anything. So if you know how to make the system more affordable to the unlucky without involving the government in the process, then I'm all ears.

---

i hate people who call obama a socialist. I appose the healthcare, but not because i think all the liberals are evil communists or something, but because I don't think our medical system can manage adding what? 50 million or something people all of a sudden, and not expect any problems, and its not like you can just go get more doctors, because now a days, the average person who gets out of med school is in almost 100,000 dollars in dept, sometimes even more, which is never an encouraging thing, especially with all the years of school and stuff needed to become one. I mean, eventually we may get it evened out if this does get passed, but in the mean time, having an overcrowded medical system is not going to improve anyones health by much.

---

At 9/2/09 07:10 PM, Dawnslayer wrote:

A little elaboration, if you would be so kind? Where do these subsidies go, how does it perpetuate the problem, and how would health care be different without it?

Paying a drug company $200 million in tax payer money to promote ads in favor of more Government control of Health-Care practically amounts to bribery with other people's money.

True. But I wasn't complaining about the cost itself - an insurer needs more money to compensate for the loss in buying their client's medications, which although an inconvenience is something I could live with. Better to pay more for help from your insurance than not have an insurance company to help you when they go bankrupt.

Or we could just do what we used to do, which was negotiate prices with the doctors and then set up an affordable payment plan to cover the costs instead of shelling out thousands of dollars every single year on the "off-chance" that something "might happen" to you.

But when, after paying the extra expenses over a number of years, you are told that for one reason or another the company is no longer willing to insure you - that's when I have a problem. Prescriptions and doctor visits are still expensive, possibly beyond affordability, and it's economically unsound for another insurer to take losses for you without having received any profit first.

Of course, this all used to be much cheaper before the 70's. And Bush's expansion of medicare to cover prescription drugs hasn't exactly solved the cost problem.

I'm not saying I have the solution right now. I don't. But the problem is still there, and ignoring it won't solve anything. So if you know how to make the system more affordable to the unlucky without involving the government in the process, then I'm all ears.

I explained it on the first page.

I consider today's US health-care to be Corporate-Care, not free market.

---

At 9/1/09 11:00 AM, Complete wrote:

Socialism is bad because it is too much for the government to manage.

Maybe in small nations, but it really can't work that well in huge nations that require tons of management.

[Looks at China, who loans money to the US] Uh...

---

I just don't understand anti healthcare proponents that believe in the 'free market fairy'. They make out that socialism has absolutely no benefits of any kind that capitalism can't do better, while true in a lot of cases but not in all cases. Armies, fire departments, law enforcement, are these things also prime examples of the failure of socialism? (Omg I wish those fucking hippy arse liberals would pay their war insurance so we don't get invaded)

Insurance companies need to make profit to say in business.

It is their legal obligation to the shareholders to make as much profit as possible.

They make this profit by charging as much as possible and providing the least service possible (the only plus is they should technically try to run things more efficiently (but that is not the case given the overhead costs).

To a degree people pay for what they use. You don't pay government tax, but you pay a higher private tax. Even don't need a lot of healthcare and your premiums are low, there is still the profit and inefficiency factor that increases the overall cost.

Public health's goal is different, to provide service. The only reason why costs would be higher in this system is due to corruption or more people are receiving healthcare that they require.

Which would cost more, a tv which is sold at the exact value of production costs or the same tv that is sold above that to make profit?
Not everything needs to make a profit, in the case of healthcare in the US this has negative effects on the economy as a whole (and yes I am aware of the corporatist policies of the US gov), how much money is squandered on inflated for profit healthcare costs that could be used in productive areas of the economy, you know areas that generate wealth.

---

At 9/2/09 10:22 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 9/2/09 07:10 PM, Dawnslayer wrote: A little elaboration, if you would be so kind?

Paying a drug company $200 million in tax payer money to promote ads in favor of more Government control of Health-Care practically amounts to bribery with other people's money.

Hold the phone - you're saying that instead of going to something like medicinal research or laboratory tests, or even paying nurses' wages, ALL of my parents' tax dollars are going to commercials for Levitra?

I wish I could say I was surprised. Even so, I would appreciate a source for my own purposes, if you're willing to provide one.

Better to pay more for help from your insurance than not have an insurance company to help you when they go bankrupt.

Or we could just do what we used to do, which was negotiate prices with the doctors and then set up an affordable payment plan to cover the costs instead of shelling out thousands of dollars every single year on the "off-chance" that something "might happen" to you.

Was there any reason this system didn't work, or was claimed not to work? Bear in mind I am a diabetic with constant expenses, mostly in prescriptions, who on that off-chance ended up screwed; this payment-plan system would work differently for someone with a broken leg than it would for me. Don't get me wrong; I'm not trying to shoot this down. I want to understand how it worked so I can form an opinion.

So if you know how to make the system more affordable to the unlucky without involving the government in the process, then I'm all ears.

I explained it on the first page. I consider today's US health-care to be Corporate-Care, not free market.

I read the post. For the convenience of everyone else not having to find it, here's part of what you said.

At 9/1/09 02:14 PM, Memorize wrote: So I'd rank it like this:

1) Free-Market: Health-Care is cheap, Private insurance Companies aren't favored, Government saves money, free clinics.

2) Socialized: Costs citizens money; ie. forcing them to pay for a service they may not use. Lower quality. Longer waits.

3) Corporate: Private insurers are favored. Sky-Rocketting prices; a lot of debt. Millions uninsured. Government loses money.

4) Public Option: Private insurers are favored. Sky-Rocketting prices; a lot of debt. Government loses money. Health Care rationing.

The best option is the free-market. The worst option is the Public Option because it's simply the exact same thing as the corporate option only on steroids (more money lost, higher prices). We can't afford a Corporate system, a public option, or a Socialized system. Not with a record $2 Trillion deficit.

First of all, you find Obama's plan deplorable, but you would take a fully socialized system over what we have now?

Reagan must be rolling in his grave.

Secondly, as a proponent of the "true free market" system (and I did pick up on the difference, thank you for pointing it out), what do you think made it work fiscally and socially? What kept the costs down, how did free clinics manage better, how did the patient benefit in comparison, etc.? And more importantly, can you name any flaws or vulnerabilities in the system that could be exploited if it were re-introduced today? And if anyone else can name a weak point, I challenge you to counter it. (For everyone else, that means assault his solution with every reasonable argument you can throw at it. Or help him to support his argument; either one works.)

---

At 9/3/09 12:09 AM, Dawnslayer wrote:

I wish I could say I was surprised. Even so, I would appreciate a source for my own purposes, if you're willing to provide one.

Honestly...

Why would they support and promote ads for the health care plan if they weren't being compensated in some way?

Kind of like the way Bush did.

And since these people are supporting a health care bill that allows for more Government control... how are they also the ones pushing people to protest the bill at town halls at the same time?

Was there any reason this system didn't work, or was claimed not to work?

Wiki... since it's so easy.

The history of HMOs in the US!

We used to have individual health insurance, until our Government in the 40's and 50's offered incentives and deductibles to employers rather than the individual. Then came along Lyndon Johnson in giving us Medicare where the cost of the program later exploded; leading Nixon to creating HMOs.

First of all, you find Obama's plan deplorable, but you would take a fully socialized system over what we have now?

Yes, because a fully socialized system would at least cost less than a public option (though at the expense of quality again).

But even if we were able to save $1 Trillion a year, that still leaves us with a $500 billion deficit on top of our $12 Trillion debt.

We can't even afford most of the things we do now.

Reagan must be rolling in his grave.

Just because I ranked it second doesn't mean I like it.

I hold it in the same regard as car insurance: People shouldn't be forced against their will into a system.

Secondly, as a proponent of the "true free market" system (and I did pick up on the difference, thank you for pointing it out), what do you think made it work fiscally and socially? What kept the costs down, how did free clinics manage better, how did the patient benefit in comparison, etc.?

Linky

17% of our GDP is health care (with our current Corporate Care with Government making up 50% of our health industry).

This is roughly $2.5 Trillion every year, spent ($12,000 per family).

Of that $2.5 Trillion, only 2% of that is dedicated to research ($50 Billion) and 4% to equipment ($100 Billion).

Now let's take into account that Medicare has fixed prices and that it's illegal to find anyone who would charge a lower price than Medicare (the Gov. hate competition).

And also take into account:

-Illegal to shop for cheaper insurance outside state lines.
-Illegal for nurses to perform surgery.
-Over half of what Doctors do is Gov.
-It's illegal for doctors to practice medicine across state lines.
-Governments mandate that hospitals who go digital keep all medical records for up to 7 more years.
-Due to our current system, people use private insurance to pay for cheap, regular check ups, which also boost the price of premiums.
-85-90% of medical lawsuits are thrown out while doctors must pay sometimes hundreds of thousands of dollars every year on Insurance of their own as a result of those lawsuits.

If we could get rid of all of these things, then Private Insurance companies wouldn't be able to charge the maximum price. There would be more free clinics as a result of doctors being able to practice out of state lines. People would be able to shop for cheaper health care promoting competition where the Insurance agencies would have to compete with lower prices.

And getting people more financially aware of how much it all costs and making them put up the tab for cheap, regular check ups (it only cost $13 for a check-up where I used to live).

Obviously prices would drop because there would be competition and price fluctuations.

Then, the Government wouldn't have to spend $12k per household on Health Care and allowing the families to save their own money to pay for the cheaper care rather than taking the money from them to pay for our current system (while leaving them to still have to foot another bill for insurance).

It'd be a lot cheaper.

Not to mention you, yourself, would be able to shop around and find cheaper prescription drugs, and with the extra cash on hand (since the Government wouldn't be taxing it from you and everyone else every year), you would be able to more readily afford it.

And more importantly, can you name any flaws or vulnerabilities in the system that could be exploited if it were re-introduced today?

Oh noes, I'll have to think even more now.

And it's 1:00am.

---

This is my responce to dawnslayer. First of all in a complete free market with no control from the government, companies will have to compete with each other in quality and become as cheap as possible with it. The reasons why those healthcare companies do that because the government holds control over some of the business and can block people from setting up shop because the newcommers cannot pay the government "tithe". This can be aplied to anything but healthcare is the major topic of today and I'm using that as a subject. People have the ability to choose what company they want to work for and if the company fucks up too much then people will stop using those companies. This is overall cheaper then universal healthcare and that is based on the somewhat flawed idealogy of humanism.

(this is not a responce to anyone, also I am not speaking for all healthcare advocates. Also mostly philosphical so I'm sorry if I'm breaking any rules)
The reason why healthcare advocates like this plan is because they believe that humans "deserve rights" such as food, water, shelter, and various things. Nobody is intitled to anything because nature in itself is a very competitive arena that everyone has to play all the time whether you like it or not. Like the saying goes "If you feed a man a fish, you feed him for a day. If you teach a man a fish, you feed him for a lifetime and finally; If you feed him forever, he is forever your slave" or something along that line.

I am honored that people such as yourselves believe in such alturistic idealogies however we must be logical. We are in a humongous amount of dept and we cannot just build things left and right because we "need" them. If you want this healthcare to happen then we must destroy institution such as the war on drugs, the war in Pakistan, and feeding the poor.

I hope someone can give me insight so I can learn from my mistakes. Whatever they are.

---

At 9/2/09 10:49 PM, bobomajo wrote:

At 9/1/09 11:00 AM, Complete wrote:

Socialism is bad because it is too much for the government to manage.

Maybe in small nations, but it really can't work that well in huge nations that require tons of management.

[Looks at China, who loans money to the US] Uh...

China isn't Socialist-They're using some hyper-strict form of communism. The kind where they call you a spy for spitting on the sidewalk, shoot you in the head, and send your family the bill for the bullet.
That's probably why China is the only country that remains communist (I think).

---

At 9/2/09 08:24 AM, bcdemon wrote: You're forced to pay for the welfare check that the non-working class gets.
As Hansari said, you're forced to pay for the schooling that the kids next door get, regardless if you have kids or not. The guy that never collects unemployment helps pay for the ones who do collect it.

....and I mentioned neither of those things because we're talking about healthcare.

If I'm arguing against universal healthcare then you should have realised that chances are I don't like the welfare system.

I also support the privatisation of education.

---

At 9/3/09 02:09 AM, Shukumei-the-Fox wrote: That's probably why China is the only country that remains communist (I think).

For fuck's sake.

---

Those who Diss Canadian and European Health care systems haven't been raped by ours.

Those in the news like Glen Beck who feed you this shit about the canadian and European healthcare system. Talk out they're ass.

http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/14/b eck-railed-against-health-care-system/

---

At 9/3/09 01:14 AM, Masterzakk wrote: The reason why healthcare advocates like this plan is because they believe that humans "deserve rights" such as food, water, shelter, and various things. Nobody is intitled to anything because nature in itself is a very competitive arena that everyone has to play all the time whether you like it or not.

Sorry pal, we don't live in "nature" anymore, we live in a society. And in order to keep society going, we need to have rights to stuff. Otherwise we are going back to "only the strong survive", which can be detrimental to the human race. It's sort of like a trade, I live under the rule of my government, and I pay them money, in return I get an education, drinking water, and in my case, healthcare. Sure the gov could say "screw you, pay your own schooling and healthcare etc" and in return, they would get diddly squat from me in the form of tax dollars. The more they offer me, the more I'm going to pay in taxes. With an education, I can get a quality job that pays the government $14,000 a year in taxes, without an education, they only get $2000 from my burger flipping ass. If I'm healthy enough to get up and go to work everyday, they get big bucks in the form of tax dollars, If I fall ill and can't go to work, they don't get shit.
It's in the governments best interest to make sure were educated and healthy enough to get a job that pays taxes, the more taxes the better.

At 9/3/09 02:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I also support the privatisation of education.

So you wouldn't mind paying upwards of $25,000 a year for an education? And I'm talking K - grade 12, not post-secondary. That would effectively make the country dumb, because very few would be able to pay for an education.
Then a recession hits, you lose your job, but in your world there is no unemployment check from the government, so now you have $0 income to pay for your childs education. So now that your child doesn't have to go to school (because you can't afford it) he goes out and breaks his leg playing in the park. How do you tell your son he has to live with the pain because you can't afford the thousands it will cost to fix his leg?

Damn good thing that was a hypothetical situation huh?

---

At 9/3/09 09:20 AM, bcdemon wrote: Sorry pal, we don't live in "nature" anymore, we live in a society. And in order to keep society going, we need to have rights to stuff.

haha, ironic.

I like how you think healthcare should be a right, but things like, hmm, I dunno, keeping the money you have earned and not having it stolen off of you by the government and given to other people, shouldn't be a right.

Otherwise we are going back to "only the strong survive", which can be detrimental to the human race.

Were in not for "only the strong survive" type evolution, there wouldn't be a fucking human race in teh first place.

It's sort of like a trade, I live under the rule of my government, and I pay them money, in return I get an education, drinking water, and in my case, healthcare.

No, no, no, shut up.

The government takes other people's money and buys healthcare for you with it.

Not you.

Sure the gov could say "screw you, pay your own schooling and healthcare etc" and in return, they would get diddly squat from me in the form of tax dollars. The more they offer me, the more I'm going to pay in taxes.

Oh so you can choose how much tax you pay? Oh how splendid.

Oh wait, no, that's the whole problem.

With an education, I can get a quality job that pays the government $14,000 a year in taxes, without an education, they only get $2000 from my burger flipping ass. If I'm healthy enough to get up and go to work everyday, they get big bucks in the form of tax dollars, If I fall ill and can't go to work, they don't get shit.

EXACTLY.

If you're not making much, they're not getting enough tax from you to pay for healthcare, so they have to get it from OTHER PEOPLE.

It's in the governments best interest to make sure were educated and healthy enough to get a job that pays taxes, the more taxes the better.

People who don't earn much tend to be the less intelligent.

Earning less means that you can't afford healthcare.

Money taken from the samrt, wealthy people and given to poor, stupid people.

Government is controlling distribution of wealth.
Socialism.

At 9/3/09 02:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I also support the privatisation of education.

So you wouldn't mind paying upwards of $25,000 a year for an education?

If I knew I was getting a quality education, then hell yes.
Education is the most important investment in one's life.

In case you haven't noticed, public education is terrrible, because the government is totally incompetent at running things.

In a free-market set up though, a company's profit relies upon providing a high standard of education.

Government's goal is votes. Private companies' goal is profits.
To get votes, you can fake competency. Profits, not so much.
See what I'm getting at here?

That would effectively make the country dumb, because very few would be able to pay for an education.

For fucks sake, THINK would you please.

Not only will companies target the upper classes with expensive education, they will also capitalise on the huge number of lower and lower middle class people in America, and make more affordable schools with lower academic standards.
They would still be better than public schools though.

Then a recession hits, you lose your job,

A recession wouldn't hit if we didn't have such an incompetent government that interferes with the economy so much.

but in your world there is no unemployment check from the government, so now you have $0 income to pay for your childs education. So now that your child doesn't have to go to school (because you can't afford it) he goes out and breaks his leg playing in the park. How do you tell your son he has to live with the pain because you can't afford the thousands it will cost to fix his leg?

Well for one thing, School fees and health insurance fees are payed in advance so I would be covered.
I would also have saved up money and will have lived within my means, unlike the many unintelligent people out there.

Damn good thing that was a hypothetical situation huh?

Damn bad thing that the current government is not hypothetical.

---

no right minded person is complaining about it being socialism.

what we are complaining about is the MORE than occasianal long waiting times, the higher taxes, the cut pay checks for Doctors causing them to leave the feild.

if you're healthy, you'll probably never have problems with it.

also, i just ADORE the way you see America as one big Strawman, its just so cute.

---

At 9/4/09 07:19 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/3/09 09:20 AM, bcdemon wrote: Sorry pal, we don't live in "nature" anymore, we live in a society. And in order to keep society going, we need to have rights to stuff.

haha, ironic.

I like how you think healthcare should be a right, but things like, hmm, I dunno, keeping the money you have earned and not having it stolen off of you by the government and given to other people, shouldn't be a right.

Ahhh, so don't think you should pay any taxes. Because inevitably some of your money will make it to other people.

Otherwise we are going back to "only the strong survive", which can be detrimental to the human race.

Were in not for "only the strong survive" type evolution, there wouldn't be a fucking human race in teh first place.

No shit sherlock, and we have evolved from that point to where we are now haven't we?
boioioing.

It's sort of like a trade, I live under the rule of my government, and I pay them money, in return I get an education, drinking water, and in my case, healthcare.

No, no, no, shut up.

The government takes other people's money and buys healthcare for you with it.

Not you.

No No, you shut up. I pay my government $1008 a year for my healthcare coverage out of my pocket. I don't pay the same amount in taxes as people in other provinces.

Sure the gov could say "screw you, pay your own schooling and healthcare etc" and in return, they would get diddly squat from me in the form of tax dollars. The more they offer me, the more I'm going to pay in taxes.

Oh so you can choose how much tax you pay? Oh how splendid.
Oh wait, no, that's the whole problem.

We can, when you decide which province you live in, you effectively chose how much provincial tax you pay. And provincial tax is where most of ones healthcare money comes from. The lowest tax bracket taxes very between 5 and 11%.

With an education, I can get a quality job that pays the government $14,000 a year in taxes, without an education, they only get $2000 from my burger flipping ass. If I'm healthy enough to get up and go to work everyday, they get big bucks in the form of tax dollars, If I fall ill and can't go to work, they don't get shit.

EXACTLY.
If you're not making much, they're not getting enough tax from you to pay for healthcare, so they have to get it from OTHER PEOPLE.

Yep. We've been doing this for decades, so it's normal for us, you're just in shock right now.

It's in the governments best interest to make sure were educated and healthy enough to get a job that pays taxes, the more taxes the better.

People who don't earn much tend to be the less intelligent.
Earning less means that you can't afford healthcare.
Money taken from the samrt, wealthy people and given to poor, stupid people.
Government is controlling distribution of wealth.
Socialism.

lol, socialism... That word is used like the word cancer is, except it's funny.

At 9/3/09 02:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I also support the privatisation of education.

So you wouldn't mind paying upwards of $25,000 a year for an education?

If I knew I was getting a quality education, then hell yes.
Education is the most important investment in one's life.

Your education is absolutely useless if you aren't healthy enough to use it.

In case you haven't noticed, public education is terrrible, because the government is totally incompetent at running things.
In a free-market set up though, a company's profit relies upon providing a high standard of education.
Government's goal is votes. Private companies' goal is profits.
To get votes, you can fake competency. Profits, not so much.
See what I'm getting at here?

You telling me companies won't fake profits in order to entice investors? Gimme a break.

That would effectively make the country dumb, because very few would be able to pay for an education.

For fucks sake, THINK would you please.

Not only will companies target the upper classes with expensive education, they will also capitalise on the huge number of lower and lower middle class people in America, and make more affordable schools with lower academic standards.
They would still be better than public schools though.

So now you have "smart" and "dumb" schools, nice society you're building there.

Then a recession hits, you lose your job,

A recession wouldn't hit if we didn't have such an incompetent government that interferes with the economy so much.

Not sure if you noticed, but the US isn't the only country in a recession right now, unless of course you think every country that is in a recession has an incompetent government.

but in your world there is no unemployment check from the government, so now you have $0 income to pay for your childs education. So now that your child doesn't have to go to school (because you can't afford it) he goes out and breaks his leg playing in the park. How do you tell your son he has to live with the pain because you can't afford the thousands it will cost to fix his leg?

Well for one thing, School fees and health insurance fees are payed in advance so I would be covered.
I would also have saved up money and will have lived within my means, unlike the many unintelligent people out there.

Well, I prefer our healthcare payment system over yours, although I do admire how many diagnostic machines your country has. That's why I don't see you guys having to deal with the wait lines we deal with, Ohio has more imaging machines than Canada does ( I know, pretty sad). That's why people here wait so long for final treatment, they have wait months just to get an image of the problem.

---

At 9/4/09 08:40 AM, bcdemon wrote: No shit sherlock, and we have evolved from that point to where we are now haven't we?
boioioing.

But you said that form of idealogy is outdated. Your a fool in general and just because you in a "society" doesn't mean that you can FUCKING ESCAPE THIS FACT YOU FUCKING FOOLISH IDIOT OF STUPIDITY!

No No, you shut up. I pay my government $1008 a year for my healthcare coverage out of my pocket. I don't pay the same amount in taxes as people in other provinces.

What are you talking about? That $1008 is wasted because the doctors of both healthcare and medicare are full of epic PHAILsauce. Hell if you want to have your heart operated on in one of those systems in Canada you have to wait 6 months.

We can, when you decide which province you live in, you effectively chose how much provincial tax you pay. And provincial tax is where most of ones healthcare money comes from. The lowest tax bracket taxes very between 5 and 11%.

This is however going to be jump started to 20%-50% percent thanks to healthcare.

work everyday, they get big bucks in the form of tax dollars, If I fall ill and can't go to work, they don't get shit.

lol, socialism... That word is used like the word cancer is, except it's funny.

Well it is a cancer; yet it's so funny.

Your education is absolutely useless if you aren't healthy enough to use it.

Indeed which is why if we have massive healthcare all of the good doctors will be forced to have bullshit equipment and use 1980's style surgery instead of the good ones we used. Our healtchare is one of the best in the world. We just have a low survival rate because of all the gang crime.

You telling me companies won't fake profits in order to entice investors? Gimme a break.

They will however if they are caught in the act noone will want to do any business with them and they will become bankrupt and finally have to cut their loses. The free market is awesome because it let's use determine actual quality with cheap prices.

So now you have "smart" and "dumb" schools, nice society you're building there.

Well it is still better than public schools though. Seriously I hardly learned anything in my 5th fucking grade. All because some students are fucking lagging behind because they don't work hard enough!

Not sure if you noticed, but the US isn't the only country in a recession right now, unless of course you think every country that is in a recession has an incompetent government.

Well DUH!. Wait they actually do have incompetent governments because of that! Stop blaming the past because with bush our deficit was merely 1 trillion dollars with Obama they were 10 trillion or so dollars.

Well, I prefer our healthcare payment system over yours, although I do admire how many diagnostic machines your country has. That's why I don't see you guys having to deal with the wait lines we deal with, Ohio has more imaging machines than Canada does ( I know, pretty sad). That's why people here wait so long for final treatment, they have wait months just to get an image of the problem.

And that's why your healtchare fucking sucks. GOODNIGHT!

---

At 9/4/09 07:19 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: People who don't earn much tend to be the less intelligent.
Earning less means that you can't afford healthcare.
Money taken from the samrt, wealthy people and given to poor, stupid people.
Government is controlling distribution of wealth.
Socialism.

...okay...

Not only will companies target the upper classes with expensive education, they will also capitalise on the huge number of lower and lower middle class people in America, and make more affordable schools with lower academic standards.
They would still be better than public schools though.

...okay...

Well for one thing, School fees and health insurance fees are payed in advance so I would be covered.
I would also have saved up money and will have lived within my means, unlike the many unintelligent people out there.

...okay.

Explain this to me, Monkey, because this is something I've never understood: where do you get this mentality that people who are poor, in general, remain so by their own actions and behavior?

Here's my story: I'm a lower-middle-class American, and I always have been. My father has a two-year degree, and works himself beyond his limits; my mother didn't finish her degree, but is one of the smartest people I know. They both earn their living, and we are as frugal with the money as possible, reserving it for food, clothes, and paying off a house we bought with our inheritance. I went to public school for thirteen years, and turned out fine; private school probably wouldn't have been an option without a government voucher (a system I wasn't even aware of until a couple of days ago). Hell, the computer I'm using right now was a gift from a friend of the family, so we didn't even spend on that. Sometimes we even manage to save a few hundred bucks and put it away for later.

Here's the thing: just when it seems we're financially sound and in the clear, something goes wrong. My dad had a well-paying job when we moved to Washington (California got too expensive), but the company failed to mention they were only keeping him on for the holiday season. He now works for the Navy on a lesser monthly salary. The April afterward, I got hit with Type I diabetes, which piled on a ton of medical bills; since then my mother's health has gradually degraded, adding even more bills. And because what affects the body also affects the brain, I am now in my fifth year at a two-year college, despite an IQ of 136-plus, and can't move out of my parents' house until I can cover my own expenses (which isn't happening without at least a two-year degree).

So at this point, the family's just trying to keep its head above water. We have no savings, because we had to use it all; I've been booted from my dad's health insurance, so we're applying for government aid to cover the bills; we've still got the house, but if any more shit hits the fan, we might have to look into selling it. And I'm willing to bet that out of the millions at and below our level, we're a fairly common case rather than the exception to some poor man's rule.

-----

Furthermore, you argue that the poor remain poor because they're not smart enough to know otherwise. What would really help with that, of course, is a proper education. But as you so aptly pointed out, a good education costs money. And while public school may not be doing a great service to that end, the system of income-based private schools you propose doesn't seem to make any real improvements; you said yourself that "affordable" schools would provide a lower standard of education. What guarantee could you offer that students in a low-income school would learn money management, economics, the tools they need to be fiscally responsible for themselves? There's a difference between not learning the material and never being taught.

I'm not saying government intervention and socialist policies are a good or bad thing. I'm just trying to point out that people who are trapped in a hole aren't always holding a shovel. Sometimes, the ground just sinks under your feet.

---

At 9/4/09 08:40 AM, bcdemon wrote: Ahhh, so don't think you should pay any taxes. Because inevitably some of your money will make it to other people.

Of course, but there are some things government need to run, such as the police force and the armed forces.
Not healthcare.

Also, of course we need taxes, but taxes should be an equal percentage of one's income regardless of how much they earn.

No shit sherlock, and we have evolved from that point to where we are now haven't we?
boioioing.

yeah, but obviously the fact that it has enabled us to come from the being unintelligent ape-like creatures to what we are now demonstrates how good of a system it is. Why stop now?

We can, when you decide which province you live in, you effectively chose how much provincial tax you pay. And provincial tax is where most of ones healthcare money comes from. The lowest tax bracket taxes very between 5 and 11%.

No, that's irrelevant.

You said "The more they offer me, the more I'm going to pay in taxes." making it sound as if you could pick and choose which services the government provided you which and taxed you for.

lol, socialism... That word is used like the word cancer is, except it's funny.

Ironic, because socialism IS a cancer to a society, what with it's parasitic nature and what not.

At 9/3/09 02:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Your education is absolutely useless if you aren't healthy enough to use it.

And if I'm investing that much in my education, I'm obviously not going to want to have my health dependant upon a shitty public healthcare system, but rather am going to invest in quality private insurance.

You telling me companies won't fake profits in order to entice investors? Gimme a break.

That' not good business practice and anyone who does that will fail in the long run.

That would effectively make the country dumb, because very few would be able to pay for an education.

For fucks sake, THINK would you please.

So now you have "smart" and "dumb" schools, nice society you're building there.

What the hell do you think we have now?

Do you that the current, government run public schools can hold a candle to the top private schools in America?

Of course not.

Not sure if you noticed, but the US isn't the only country in a recession right now, unless of course you think every country that is in a recession has an incompetent government.

Most do.

But given how reliant the world is on the US economy, it was bound to follow that they would all suffer as well.

Well for one thing, School fees and health insurance fees are payed in advance so I would be covered.
I would also have saved up money and will have lived within my means, unlike the many unintelligent people out there.

Well, I prefer our healthcare payment system over yours, although I do admire how many diagnostic machines your country has. That's why I don't see you guys having to deal with the wait lines we deal with, Ohio has more imaging machines than Canada does ( I know, pretty sad). That's why people here wait so long for final treatment, they have wait months just to get an image of the problem.

Okay..?

---

At 9/2/09 11:44 PM, bobomajo wrote: I just don't understand anti healthcare proponents that believe in the 'free market fairy'. They make out that socialism has absolutely no benefits of any kind that capitalism can't do better, while true in a lot of cases but not in all cases. Armies, fire departments, law enforcement, are these things also prime examples of the failure of socialism? (Omg I wish those fucking hippy arse liberals would pay their war insurance so we don't get invaded)

If you talk with a rothbardian they'll tell you that Armies, Fire departments, and law enforcement can be privatized. But I'll only point out what makes these things bad examples even if you don't want them to be privatized.

Let's begin with the Army. In my opinion the only lesson that the US can learn from Europe is how to use their army; Stop using it so damn much. The US could easily slash it's military budget in half and still have more than enough money to defend the homeland. The American Military industrial complex is more socialist in this respect than that of other so-called socialist countries; in that it consumes a disproportionately large part of our budget.

Private fire fighting agencies have come about in the past, furthermore, a large portion of fire-fighting is done through volunteers. It's also worth noting that fire fighting is a LOCAL government service. There is no "National Bureau of firefighting" As far as i know. (Although i wouldn't be surprised if there was or was planned to be). Most socialists i know can't understand what makes a local government different than a national government. If your house burns down and the newly established federal bureau of firefighting didn't come to put out the fire, are you going to march to Washington to complain about it? Do you think they would even care?

the benefit of local government is that if a local government agency fails, pretty much everyone in the community learns about it, and puts pressure on the government to solve the problem. If one community get's screwed by a federal agency, there won't be a national storm on Washington. And if they screw several communities, the odds that you'll hear about it on national television are small.

But that isn't to say that the free market hasn't worked to substantially reduce the risk of fire in people's lives. Most insurance policies center around financial incentives to encourage people to increase the safety of their homes. The restrictive covanent and the inter subjective consensus of home safety and fire hazards has also played part. Likewise, competition between housing construction naturally leads to to revolutions in house comfort and design, including benefits like added safety.

Law Enforcement. When Liberals opposed the bush administration's seemingly authoritarian policies of civil rights violations via the patriot act, and his militaristic adventures; The Iraq and Afghan war... i used to recall how the liberals (or so they call themselfs) loved to point at videos that revealed what i would call the opposite of the invisible hand; the invisible gun. Police officers and army troopers harassing innocents, pulling them out of cars and hounding them etc.

The government has local monopolies on the protection of persons and property; this means that prices will be higher than normal. (That means, through taxes) and service will generally be poor. On a market, the revenue of a business is tied to the extent to which it's customers are satisfied with the services provided.

Tell me this; when you're around a police officer do you feel safe or do you feel scared?

The bottom line is that people will protect you to the extent that they have an interest in protecting you, with the rare exception of friends and families. The public police fund is not tied to the extent to which people are kept safe or the extent to which people feel safe.

My Dad is a cop BTW. I'm not saying that police officers are inherently bad or evil people; i don't think teachers and public employees are bad people. But i do know that there are perverse incentives and the degree of accountability that the police, and by extension, the public sector, has to the 'people' is very minimal compared to the kind of tough regulations that occur from the buying practices of individuals choosing what is best for them.

Insurance companies need to make profit to say in business.

It is their legal obligation to the shareholders to make as much profit as possible.

This argument applies to all businesses in all situations. Grocery stores need profit to stay in business. Shoe stores need profit to stay in business. Clothes stores need profit to stay in business. Video game makers need profits to stay in business. Should we nationalize every business in existence based upon whether or not they need profit to stay in business?

This kind of statement displays a colossal ignorance about what sets prices in a market. Businesses would like to set prices, but in an atmosphere of open competition and voluntary exchange, prices are set by consumers.

The reason why the private insurance market is not behaving like most other (largely unregulated) markets is because of perverse incentives that have been created and have already been mentioned on this BBS.

What we have now is NOT a free market in the provision of health care.

---

At 9/3/09 02:39 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: ....and I mentioned neither of those things because we're talking about healthcare.

If I'm arguing against universal healthcare then you should have realised that chances are I don't like the welfare system.

I also support the privatisation of education.

My post was misinterpreted. If you read it individually, I was agreeing with you and being sarcastic.

My apologies for not clarifying myself. (I'll add more of these next time :P :P :P :P :P)

At 9/3/09 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/3/09 02:09 AM, Shukumei-the-Fox wrote: That's probably why China is the only country that remains communist (I think).

For fuck's sake.

Hahahahha...

Anyway, can you believe just how SHIT healthcare is in China? I mean after Michael Moore kept jerking off on his way to Cuba...

---

At 9/3/09 02:43 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 9/3/09 02:09 AM, Shukumei-the-Fox wrote: That's probably why China is the only country that remains communist (I think).

For fuck's sake.

*Puts foot in mouth*

---

At 9/2/09 04:05 PM, studmuffin7 wrote:

At 9/1/09 08:29 AM, Eddyking wrote: I really don't see the problem with socialized healthcare. So what if its socialist? The cold war is over and America needs some socialism in it.

The world does not need any socialism.

I totally agree with you. If ppl think that socialism is somthing to mess with then i say lets show them what it truely is made out of. So everything is "fair" , in a city of 5 people, 3 are homeless and 2 have cardboard boxes with a few pennies, next the government steps in, takes the boxes and splits them up, and all the money is taken for taxes...
Or an even better example, i work for a living, and after years of managing my money well i have left over money for retirement, the government punishes me by taxing me higher then someone on walfare, who pays nothing and saves nothing