They dismiss the idea that free market health care is better than socialized health care because health care in Canada, UK, France and Scandinavian countries are serviceable. It's irrelevant that free market health care is better as long as health care in those countries proves that socialized care is at least serviceable and even great in some Scandinavian countries.
So is it correct to say:
Socialized health care can work very well but it needs massive amounts of government spending the funding of which is taken from the rest of the economy. So you get good health care at the expense of low productivity and jobs being lost from other sectors of the economy.
Socialized health care works in Europe because of the industrial base left off from the previous capitalist economy. Lack of economic calculation results in continuous capital consumption(always operating at a loss) so socialist health care will need ever more government spending(taken from rest of economy) to sustain its quality.
Also how do you convince them of the subjective theory of value when it comes to health care. I myself tend to think that health care is pretty straight forward in that we don't need so many drugs for the same illness as is the case in capitalist economy. More money would be saved if we focused on producing a limited number of drugs for every disease. We only need medical equipment that satisfies the bare minimum of curing the patient unlike in a capitalist economy where medical equipment costs much because it provides for unnecessary comfort. Seriously, until now I cannot reconcile subjective theory of value with objective needs. Cannot man identify objective needs like bare minimum of providing somebody with health care(maybe it is purely subjective with education, but health care?).
I am however, convinced that centrally planned health care will be very inefficient(long lines) but remains serviceable as long as government spends more and more like I explained in the second paragraph.
Please explain.
What is the name of this company in Sweden?
My best argument against socialized healthcare is: initiation of force is evil.
Not offices and bureaucrats, but big business deserves credit for the fact that most of the families in the United States own a motorcar and a radio set. - Ludwig von Mises
You're probably right, and for a while, it won't bother people that we've just created another massive entitlement that will eventually require a massive bailout. I mean SS is projected to fail in what...2017? Medicare is supposed to have problems around 2030ish (probably sooner.) A lot of people don't care about the long term consequences of public policies, they just see what the immediate gain will be. Anyone who cannot be denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition and anyone who is going to get subsidies to buy health insurance is going to be very pleased. Nationalized health insurance will work for some at the expense of others, but right now, no one seems to care about the others.
EDIT: I think I should add that that I'm like 90 percent sure they can't pass the public option through reconciliation. What we're going to have is just a lot of subsidies and a national mandate. I can't remember what else they've got in this bill atm.
Kenneth: What is the name of this company in Sweden?
I don't remember what article it was in.
bloomj31: EDIT: I think I should add that that I'm like 90 percent sure they can't pass the public option through reconciliation. What we're going to have is just a lot of subsidies and a national mandate. I can't remember what else they've got in this bill atm.
find it very hard to care about the details that Washington and the media love to make a big deal over.
Joe: find it very hard to care about the details that Washington and the media love to make a big deal over.
I just find it hard to follow, there's so much going on all the time.
There are a lot of European countries who have budget surpluses(not necessarily a good thing but proves you wrong). Norway has a lot of money stored in a public trust fund. Germany has a lot of forex reserves. So no Europe is not collapsing. It's economy is deteriorating but it's definitely not collapsing in the predictable future.
Kenneth:There are a lot of European countries who have budget surpluses(not necessarily a good thing but proves you wrong). Norway has a lot of money stored in a public trust fund. Germany has a lot of forex reserves.
What are these so called forex reserves comprised off? do you know? How much of that is US dollars, Euros, Government bonds, and other toxic assets?
The point is that these countries are most likely heavily invested in garbage. The surpluses are mostly illusive.
That's a bold statement. Proof please.
Kenneth: That's a bold statement. Proof please.
Proof for what? You claim they have savings. we are dealing with governments here so the burden of proof is on you to show what these saving are really comprised off.
I say they are invested in garbage. prove me wrong.
There are a lot of European countries who have budget surpluses(not necessarily a good thing but proves you wrong).
Lol this proves what wrong exactly?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Jon Irenicus: There are a lot of European countries who have budget surpluses(not necessarily a good thing but proves you wrong). Lol this proves what wrong exactly?
He is referring to this:
Esuric:Those nations are about to collapse,
What I meant is, how does it prove they're not?
Kenneth: There are a lot of European countries who have budget surpluses(not necessarily a good thing but proves you wrong). Norway has a lot of money stored in a public trust fund.
There are a lot of European countries who have budget surpluses(not necessarily a good thing but proves you wrong). Norway has a lot of money stored in a public trust fund.
Norway is not part of the eurozone.
So no Europe is not collapsing. It's economy is deteriorating but it's definitely not collapsing in the predictable future.
Unless they cut spending drastically, the eurozone is bound to fail in the predictable future.
Jon Irenicus: What I meant is, how does it prove they're not?
I like Roger Garrison's analogy. If the US debt is like a hockey stick, then the one who is holding it is the puck.