It's not true that socialized health care hasn't led to increased standards of living anywhere in the world, is it? Look at Cuba. I've also read that the health care standards in the Soviet Union were good, but broke down when capitalism infiltrated the system.
alimentarius:It's not true that socialized health care hasn't led to increased standards of living anywhere in the world, is it?
How can that be true logically? In order to provide medicine to people who haven't paid for it, that money must have come from somewhere else. It's not "free".
So at best, it is a shift of resources from somewhere else, to healthcare. But we (@ LvMI) struggle with this for two reasons.
1. Who knows best how to spend their own money (including charity to those less fortunate) than the people who earned the money in the first place? Who knows that the best use of that money is healthcare? What form of healthcare? At the best price?
and
2. Do the ends justify the means? Many here would argue, it is not acceptable to adopt any means possible to achieve an ends. That is, it is not ethical to take from one person by force or threat of force, to pay for the needs of someone else. Charity is acceptable but coercion is not.
alimentarius:Look at Cuba.
Yes, please go ask Cubans how much they like their country. Remember, it's a package deal. You pay for the healthcare and education by surrendering other economic freedoms. No free rides. That's opportunity costs 101.
alimentarius:It's not true that socialized health care hasn't led to increased standards of living anywhere in the world, is it? Look at Cuba.
alimentarius:I've also read that the health care standards in the Soviet Union were good, but broke down when capitalism infiltrated the system.
alimentarius: It's not true that socialized health care hasn't led to increased standards of living anywhere in the world, is it? Look at Cuba. I've also read that the health care standards in the Soviet Union were good, but broke down when capitalism infiltrated the system.
I'll go straight to the Ad Hominem attacks since you've already been refuted.
You go to college, you like chomsky, "social justice" and you watch Michael Moore?
I agree with many of your points, I just don't want to swallow "libertarian propaganda" either.
Watch Stossel's video series on healthcare where he tears about the garbage spewed by the likes of Moore, who is very selective in his exposition of the "facts"... BTW, Maltsev is not some "propagandist". He lived in and has researched the soviet economy. I've seen little indication that anything was "good" about soviet healthcare, and even less about its Cuban counterpart.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
alimentarius:I agree with many of your points, I just don't want to swallow "libertarian propaganda" either.
Well no one here is pushing propaganda. We're pushing facts and rational thinking. If you can reason something out, then that's as good an answer as any of us can provide. The people who have to push propaganda, don't have a rational proposal, and so they have to make appeals to emotion, tell half-truths, and at times, outright lie.
What I've learnt at school is that the current crises of governance derive directly from the weakening of the nation-state. A weak state cannot protect its owncitizens; consequently, a weak state cannot rely on their loyalty. Thus, citizens vote for those who offer better personal conditions.
Watch the videos and you'll learn more than you ever have at school.
How about if I got injured in an accident and that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix it? Most countries in Europe have a systemm based on socialized health care. Is the standard of living decreasing in Europe? Does the system cost the european tax payers more than in the US?
alimentarius:How about if I got injured in an accident and that it would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix it?
First, socialized medicine drives up costs, because
1. There is no rational pricing without competition
2. If you subsidize something, the price always goes up
So it is unlikely that it might cost hundreds of thousands like it does today. That said, you would likely carry insurance for accidents and the unforeseen events. This is known as "major medical". Today in the US, everything is insured, but much of it are maintenance costs, regular visits, shots, check ups, exams, scans etc. Those are expected costs like changing the tires on your car or adding transmission fluid. We don't insure against expected events, we insure where there is risk, like your accident. So right there, we might expect insurance to be cheaper, because it is not covering everything, only the expensive, major and unpredictable things.
But if you had no insurance, and no money to pay, and couldn't borrow the money, either from a third party, friends or family, I suspect there is a pretty good chance you could get served by charity.
This is worth a read
http://libertariannation.org/a/f12l3.html
alimentarius:Most countries in Europe have a systemm based on socialized health care.
You're in luck here. We have people who have lived, or are from Europe including England, and Canada, and the former Soviet Union, and you can find out lots of first hand experiences. For example, I am a Canadian. And I would not wish our health care system on my enemy.
alimentarius:Is the standard of living decreasing in Europe?
That's a loaded question. How do we define the standard of living? If it is free healthcare, then they have that. If it is money for other things, then they may not have that. If it is having a government which doesn't pass a debt on to future generations, then they are without that.
It's a very nuanced question. We deal with individuals and individualism. It is impossible to say what the preferences of 100 or 10000 people are, let alone millions. They are all individual economic actors, all with their own means and ends. The only way we can know that they are maximizing their standard of living, is if each of them is making their own choices for themselves with their own money.
alimentarius:Does the system cost the european tax payers more than in the US?
That's a good question. Although, cost again is relative. Everyone talks about 47 million some American without insurance, but more than 1/2 of that number choose not to have insurance. That's an example of a half-truth.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070718153509.aspx
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6097004365489271433&hl=en
The Cure: How Capitalism Can Cure America's Socialist Health Care System
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
My daughter just got back from Cuba. She said that, in talking to the people there, she learned that a child 2 years old and younger is considered a fetus, and if one dies, it is recorded as still-born or as a spontaneous abortion.
Thus, Cuba's government can show longevity rates that equal or surpass those of any first world country.
Read my Nolan Chart column "Me & My Big Mouth"
Knight_of_BAAWA: alimentarius:I've also read that the health care standards in the Soviet Union were good, but broke down when capitalism infiltrated the system. What communist apologist wrote that nonsense?
What communist apologist wrote that nonsense?
I'd start with the Wikipedos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin#Social_services
Perverters of knowledge.
alimentarius:What I've learnt at school is that the current crises of governance derive directly from the weakening of the nation-state.
alimentarius: What I've learnt at school is that the current crises of governance derive directly from the weakening of the nation-state. A weak state cannot protect its owncitizens; consequently, a weak state cannot rely on their loyalty. Thus, citizens vote for those who offer better personal conditions.
I suggest watching this video; more specifically starting at the 12:00 mark.
Have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88KmmR4d5Ig&feature=PlayList&p=599E0AFD939AE79E&index=0&playnext=1
alimentarius: Most countries in Europe have a systemm based on socialized health care. Is the standard of living decreasing in Europe?
Most countries in Europe have a systemm based on socialized health care. Is the standard of living decreasing in Europe?
Yes. European health care system costs have been increasing, forcing the government to increase tax rates. This will lead to the stifling of investment and economic stagnation. Economic growth rates in most of Western Europe, except countries which were subject to credit bubbles (Ireland and Spain—I am from the latter), was already near 1%. Below, ignore the "optimal size" (it is an arbitrary number):
alimentarius: Have you seen this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88KmmR4d5Ig&feature=PlayList&p=599E0AFD939AE79E&index=0&playnext=1
This video is a great example of people making conclusions not only before engaging in research/inquiry, but also the very second after the subject is brought up.
Example of credulity and shallow analysis:
"I read somewhere that there are alot more cases of malpractice in America"
Yes, the legal framework there is in an entirely different ballpark than in Canada (possibly lack their own CMPA, not sure). John Edwards was able to sue doctors for birth defects in newborns with the use of junk science. Of course the unintended consequence of such a sue-happy framework is the squandering of resources.
Then there's the issue of medical board which this article covers quite nicely:
http://mises.org/story/3643
Jon Irenicus:Watch Stossel's video series on healthcare where he tears about the garbage spewed by the likes of Moore, who is very selective in his exposition of the "facts"...
Nice series, but I think comparing health insurance to grocery insurance is a bit unfair. Is it really a problem that people have health insurance?
Btw, how come this libertarian guy is an anchor for ABC if the media is controlled by the nwo?
alimentarius:Btw, how come this libertarian guy is an anchor for ABC if the media is controlled by the nwo?
Libertarianism is not synonymous with conspiracy theory.
alimentarius:Nice series, but I think comparing health insurance to grocery insurance is a bit unfair.
Why?
alimentarius:Is it really a problem that people have health insurance?
What people in the US now have, are pre-payment plans and government subsidized care for the elderly, the needy and illegals (Medicare). Insurance is a scheme where risk is pooled. In the US, people don't pay based on risk, they pre-pay for care they know they will use. There is no element of uncertainty in such a scheme. You wouldn't insure your car against running out of gas, or needing new tires. Those are expected and predictable costs. Same thing with checkups, or pregnancy. Immunization and blood tests.
Notice how there is no prescription insurance? They are called prescription PLANS. It is understood that the plan gets you to pre-pay for medicine, within limits of use you are expected to meet over time. Likewise, except for accidents, and what is called major medical, that is sudden unpredictable onset of diabetes, or cancer, strokes and such, most medical care is expected and predictable.
liberty student:Libertarianism is not synonymous with conspiracy theory.
Maybe not, but my impression is that most of you believe the world is run by bankers, that Obama is a puppet, that the Bilderberger Group are setting the agenda for the world, that mainstream media is a government propaganda machine, that 911 was an inside job etc.
alimentarius: liberty student:Libertarianism is not synonymous with conspiracy theory. Maybe not, but my impression is that most of you believe the world is run by bankers, that Obama is a puppet, that the Bilderberger Group are setting the agenda for the world etc.
Maybe not, but my impression is that most of you believe the world is run by bankers, that Obama is a puppet, that the Bilderberger Group are setting the agenda for the world etc.
I don't see anything conspiracious about the idea that the world is run by bankers and that Obama is a puppet for certain interest groups. Anyway, we don't believe that in a conspiracy way.
alimentarius:Maybe not, but my impression is that most of you believe the world is run by bankers
And how did you come to that conclusion?
alimentary my dear watson!
Unfair in what way?
Or perhaps we don't.
alimentarius: Is it really a problem that people have health insurance?
Did anyone say here that he has? I think some may have a problem with mandatory insurance.
alimentarius:...how come this libertarian guy is an anchor for ABC if the media is controlled by the nwo?
The "you-are-a-conspiracy-theorist" tag line is quite a joker argument. Hence it is completely useless. Why not deal with what the guy was actually saying ?!
alimentarius: liberty student:Libertarianism is not synonymous with conspiracy theory. Maybe not, but my impression is that most of you believe the world is run by bankers, that Obama is a puppet, that the Bilderberger Group are setting the agenda for the world, that mainstream media is a government propaganda machine, that 911 was an inside job etc.
I can haz evidence?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Is mainstream media closer to a government propaganda machine or a libertarian propaganda machine?
From what I have seen on this forum, people who believe such things are shot down quickly and decisively, and/or ridiculed until they give up and leave.
In fact, the first time I ever encountered the word 'conspiritard', it was in a chat session with one of the moderators of this forum.
This thread is a good example of what I am talking about.