Quote :

"So wait...you're at State...having your education subsidized by the government and thus the taxpayers...so that you can get a job and never want to subsidize anyone else?"

I never said I had a problem with that. I have a problem paying for programs that encourage and breed dependence. And as time goes on the percentage I pay will grow larger and larger.

Quote :

"Why not privatize them?"

I believe the police are one of the few essential things that should be funded publicly as they benefit everyone. I'm a radical libertarian, not an anarchist. Socialized healthcare benefits noone but the poor as the middle/upper classes can pay for their own medical expenses.

1/31/2006 4:49:35 PM

Quote :

"so you are playing class warfare then. "

Could you elaborate on that? Did you say that because I pointed out that rich people will tend to spend more money than poor people? Is it also class warfare to point out that Bill Gates probably doesn't eat at McDonalds and I don't eat at $100 restaurants?

Quote :

"Ironically, this is how the thread began. You posting bullshit."

Geez, why do you hate me so? It didn't seem like bullshit to me. Yes, the delicensing component is probably heedless, merely reforming the process would probably do the trick (kick out the AMA, replace it with state-run boards).

Quote :

"This is something that can clearly be manipulated by those who have money against those who do not have money. Besides, malpractice suits make up less than 1% of healthcare costs"

Of course, so can everything else, such as the existing system. That said, while only 1% actually goes to paying off lawsuits, because so many are frivalous (assuming you are right), a far larger percentage is spent avoiding lawsuits. Irrational or not, my contacts in the "biz" say that nearly 1/3rd of their time was spent on activities aimed at avoiding lawsuits. And, of course, you completely ignore the army of doctors that have been banned from practice because they got sued once, won in court, and are uninsurable as a result (my roomates father went out like that, evidently once you have been sued then, god forbid, in a subsequent case it could be used against you regardless of the prior outcome).

Quote :

"Those altruisitic companies. They would never put something on the market that would hurt pepole (thalydomide)."

thalydomide, if I remember correctly, was held-back on a technicality in the US. They were just about to aprove it when evidence finally arose that it was "causing problems." Every other socialized country approved it.

1/31/2006 5:42:27 PM

Quote :

"Could you elaborate on that? Did you say that because I pointed out that rich people will tend to spend more money than poor people? Is it also class warfare to point out that Bill Gates probably doesn't eat at McDonalds and I don't eat at $100 restaurants? "

because you are saying the poor should have to go to unlicensed doctors because they cannot afford licensed doctors.

Quote :

"Geez, why do you hate me so? It didn't seem like bullshit to me. Yes, the delicensing component is probably heedless, merely reforming the process would probably do the trick (kick out the AMA, replace it with state-run boards)."

Do you even know what the AMA does? based upon your statements you have no clue. And there are state-run boards. I hate you because you spew bullshit without any knowledge

Quote :

"Of course, so can everything else, such as the existing system. That said, while only 1% actually goes to paying off lawsuits, because so many are frivalous (assuming you are right), a far larger percentage is spent avoiding lawsuits."

No, that is not why so little goes to malpractice. The reason why so little goes to malpractice is because guess what, malpractice suits are not out of hand.

Quote :

" Irrational or not, my contacts in the "biz" say that nearly 1/3rd of their time was spent on activities aimed at avoiding lawsuits."

Bullshit. I can talk to my contacts in the business (my dad, two brothers, and my brother-in-law) and they will say you are full of shit. their time is dealing with medicine and patients.

Quote :

"And, of course, you completely ignore the army of doctors that have been banned from practice because they got sued once, won in court, and are uninsurable as a result (my roomates father went out like that, evidently once you have been sued then, god forbid, in a subsequent case it could be used against you regardless of the prior outcome)."

Once again bullshit. your roommates father probably was a shady doctor and had more than one malpractice suit brought against him. I know of many doctors who have been sued frivolously and won and guess what, they are still in practice. If it is true that one suit brought about your roommate's father's demise in the field then he probably lost and the insurance company no longer wanted to insure him. Just like car insurance. you get into too many accidents or have a huge fucking accident and the insurance company will drop you.

Now, don't try to lecture me about the medical field, because guess what, I grew up around it.

1/31/2006 11:06:48 PM

Wow, sorry dude. Didn't mean to say anything about you and your family. It's just an internet discussion, don't take it so personal. Obviously your family would know better than I. But as for my story, it was just the one lawsuit and they did win. But it was a small private practice (only three doctors) and the insurance company said good ridence.

I'm glad to hear your family and friends have avoided any such events, may that continue.

PS: Just for the sake of asking, what is your family's position on nationalization? I'm in favor of socialization while maintaining a free market component (such as exists in Canada).

[Edited on January 31, 2006 at 11:38 PM. Reason : PS]

1/31/2006 11:32:03 PM

most are in fact in favor of socialization because it would make life easier

p.s. you didn't offend my family

pps insurance companies bring in more money than in premiums than they pay out each year. This exludes the money they make on the stock market by playing around with premium money.

1/31/2006 11:44:59 PM

Not to name drop (actually, exactly for that purpose), but word on the street is that TGD supports nationalizing health insurance, too.

Just a to sleep on.

2/1/2006 12:44:43 AM

<--- Supports socialized healthcare, as well as social a bunch of other stuff.

I haven't read the rest of the thread, but I will once the coffee kicks in.

Many are my problems with capitalism, and the close ties with greed it holds are disturbing. I believe that there exist services in which that very system of greed goes against the best interests of the public. Healthcare (as well as education, food, and energy generation and distrubution) should be systems fuctioning independatly of capitalism, run at an at-cost basis to keep prices low.

There also needs to be a huge reworking of the legislation surrounding healthcare, and medical lawsuits, but that's kinda going hand in hand with the socializing healthcare.

I'm not offering a HOW, I'm just offering the tip of the iceberg that is my opinion.

2/1/2006 7:57:58 AM

Quote :

"(as well as...food, and energy generation and distrubution)should be systems fuctioning independatly of capitalism, run at an at-cost basis to keep prices low. "

Really? So the argument that "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" doesn't apply? Secondly, where do new firms come from? We don't have enough electricity generation/food production right now to meet the demands of 20 years from now, where does that come from if the owners are going to be forced to operate "at cost"? Why should any businessman invest his money building power plants/farms when he can get a far greater return building a hand-cream factory?

[Edited on February 1, 2006 at 9:21 AM. Reason : .,.]

2/1/2006 9:21:03 AM

Socialized food distribution

2/1/2006 9:21:27 AM

Quote :

"....close ties with greed...system of greed "

Greed is a relative term. What is greed? How much is too greedy? Seems it's usually a characteristic that the other guy has. But actually anything you do Sayer in your life to financially improve yourself could be considered a system of greed. Your cat Dublin could be just an example. Someone who can't afford, or doesn't wish to own a cat might see you as greedy.

Just something to think about as you swing the word around.

2/1/2006 10:31:06 AM

Quote :

"(as well as...food, and energy generation and distrubution)should be systems fuctioning independatly of capitalism, run at an at-cost basis to keep prices low."

Ludicrous. Everybody can afford electricity, and government involvement in food distribution in the country hasn't been for our benefit so far.

2/1/2006 11:37:26 AM

Ack. Ok, first an apology to those who read my last post in thread and wondered aloud "WTF?" Tdub needs to have a method of checking blood/caffine levels before 10AM to make sure the poster is concious enough for clear thought. At least in the Soap Box.

To clarify my stance on Socialism:
I like it. Morally and ethically I think parts of it are a really good idea. I believe that as human beings, we should work to provide certain freedoms and services to all people, regardless of economic status.

Parts of socialism that I like:
The government owning/operating/regulating/controlling certain vital services. Healthcare is one of these. Not research, just the service itself. I feel it should still pay those it employs in those socialized fields competitively for whatever job they are performing.

Things I think should be socialized:
Healthcare - Every person should have the right to be healthy, period. Your health shouldn't be dependant on how much money you make or how much money you have.

Clean Water - Everyone should have access in their home to clean water. Unsanitary H2O only increases the spread of disease. No one should be making money off of providing humanity with a basic resource such as water.

Education - Knoweldge should be freely available to all. No matter what a person's economic background, everyone should be entitled to it. It should also function in a manner supportive of itself. Ie: politicians shouldn't pick a cirriculum, but rather those at the top levels of the academic fields themselves. They're the ones with the expertise. Education doesn't stop at high school either. College and adult education services should be provided as well.

Food - In a world where we are perfectly capable of growing enough food to feed everyone, I feel like no one should go hungry or starve. Granted the problem at that point isn't production but distribution. However, subsidizing farmer's NOT to grow shit has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I feel like from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor, everyone should get enough food to live. Past that, if you want to go out and buy more shit to eat, you're more than welcome to. But no one should have to starve.

Shelter - Granted, I'm not saying give every homeless person in America a mansion or even a 2 bedroom house. What I am saying is that regardless of economic status, people need to have a roof over their head. We call them Homeless shelters today, but I don't think we've got the right idea 100%. No one who is homeless has much of an oppertunity to move at all up the ladder without at least some basic place to call home.

Energy - If everything above is close to the center of the socialistic idea that I have in my head, this one is closer to the edge. Some friends and I have talked about it and it seemed like eventually it would be neccessary to include this one in there as well. Gamecat may be able to remember what we said about this one, or I might remember in detail later.

In the end:
I've got no problem paying 50% of my paycheck to the govt. as long as I feel like my money is going towards something that is beneficial to society and to myself. If the above services are covered, what else is there really to spend your money on?

I'm NOT in favor of a communist system, where the state own everything. I wish that we could socialize the above, and keep the rest of the commercial and industrial sector private. I don't support freeloaders either, and a person's rights to the above would have to in some way be based on their willingness to work OR their willingness to try. The current "welfare" system we have now is a joke, as is social security. It needs serious help.

2/1/2006 3:02:31 PM

Quote :

"Food - In a world where we are perfectly capable of growing enough food to feed everyone, I feel like no one should go hungry or starve."

You do realize the #1 health problem of America's poor is obesity, right?

Clean water is already government run. Yes, many cities have contracted out the job to a company but the result is the same.

Food/Shelter/Energy are all covered by homeless shelters and other charities. I don't see why we need to nationalize half the economy just to provide for people that are already being provided for.

2/1/2006 4:28:03 PM

I apologize for the length of this.

Quote :

"You do realize the #1 health problem of America's poor is obesity, right?"

First, you're blatently making the assumption that I feel my philosophy should only apply in America. Never once in the statement above did I say anything about this being US specific. Do you realize how many people in the world barely have enough to eat?

But ok, we'll stick to your shortsighted American example. I've been searching over the CDC and the Center of Health Statistics websites for a while, as well as googling for more information about your little obesity stat, and I'm having trouble finding it. Would you be so kind as to provide where you got said information? I'd rather give you a chance to prove you're right than moronically flame you and call you a liar.

What I have found is plenty of information to support obesity in general. The CDC seems to think that as of 2003, 65% of Americans are obese.

Quote :

"The prevalence of overweight and obesity among adults 20-74 years of age increased from 47 percent in 1976-80 to 65 percent in 1999-2002."

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus05.pdf#chartbookontrendsinthe

Plus, from your statemen it sounds like you are asserting that because obesity is a problem, then everyone rich and poor must be getting plenty of food. This is simply not the case. Having a percent of the population with an obesity problem does not equal everyone is getting fed and no one is hungry.

Or we could take a different approach. Why would poor people be more likely to be obese? Hmm.. do homeless people have places to fix food? Which is easier to get for a poor or homeless person: healthy food from a grocery store or fast food? If you're begging for change on a sidewalk, you're not going anywhere for a while... grab a snickers.

However I did find information on the health of poor people in general compared to those above the poverty line. Sounds like those of us with some $$ are doing way better. From the same exact page I pulled the other quote from:

Quote :

"In 2003 the percent of persons reporting their health status as fair or poor was more than three times as high for persons living below the poverty level as for those with family income more than twice the poverty level (20 percent and 6 percent, age adjusted)."

Even if we go along with the "Fuck the homeless. They obviously made some choices and are there for a reason." attitude, what about the kids? Poverty stricken families still have children. Surely you don't think it's thier fault they're poor as well? Do they deserve the same heartless treatment as their parents? Here's a line from the Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project:

Quote :

"hungry children suffer from two to four times as many individual health problems, such as unwanted weight loss, fatigue, headaches, irritability, inability to concentrate and frequent colds, as low-income children whose families do not experience food shortages."

But alas, according to you, they're not our responsibility. Fuck them.

But enough of health and food for a little bit. If I need to come back and illustrate more, I've got plenty of material to do so.

Quote :

"Food/Shelter/Energy are all covered by homeless shelters and other charities. I don't see why we need to nationalize half the economy just to provide for people that are already being provided for."

So in your opinion there is nothing wrong with the system? It is working great? No room for any improvement whatsoever? Everyone is getting and can be provided food, shelter and energy?

Back here in reality, 52% of shelter requests by homeless or poverty stricken families are denyed. This is because there isn't enough resources to go around. That's just the families, ie: first priority homeless. Families with children get in before anyone else, so how many other people are standing outside in the cold? Starving?

Side Note: Water is great and clean everywhere? You must not travel much. Straight from the NRDC about a survey of the drinking water in just 19 cities in the US:

Quote :

"a carefully researched, documented and peer-reviewed study of the drinking water systems of 19 U.S. cities, found that pollution and deteriorating, out-of-date plumbing are sometimes delivering drinking water that might pose health risks to some residents. Many cities around the country rely on pre-World War I-era water delivery systems and treatment technology. Aging pipes can break, leach contaminants into the water they carry and breed bacteria -- all potential prescriptions for illness. And old-fashioned water treatment -- built to filter out particles in the water and kill some parasites and bacteria -- generally fails to remove 21st-century contaminants like pesticides, industrial chemicals and arsenic."

That's just 19 cities. What about the rest of the country? Think it's top notch? I'll give you a hint, people are drinking record numbers of bottled water for a reason.

---

I'll end by saying that it's not just about poor people. It is about everyone. EVERYONE is entitled to this stuff, because after all this is provided, the playing field is much more level. Additionally, the whole of society benefits from everyone getting help. Crime decreases, the avg education lvl increases, the spread of disease decreases, lots of good things happen. WE as college students should know and appreciate what going out into the world without health coverage is like.

2/2/2006 10:12:40 AM

one argument that I've seen crop up several times in this thread is that doctors are losing their licenses because of the inability to pay for insurance due to law suits.

It's actually pretty common for a doctor to have malpractice lawsuits brought against them, but their insurance doesn't go up prohibitively unless they lose the lawsuit. My cousin is a surgeon who has had several malpractice lawsuits brought against him, he's won them all, and has had no problem keeping insurance. He makes over 150k per year (that's after lawsuits, insurance, etc). The only doctors that have trouble keeping insurance are the ones losing malpractice lawsuits, and they should lose their license to practice anways.

2/2/2006 10:51:38 AM

This thread is as good as any for me to say that the more I read about HSAs, the more ridiculous they seem.

And they seemed pretty fucking stupid to start with.

2/2/2006 10:57:10 AM

^^malpractice lawsuits are not common at all

Quote :

"Claims filed. At the same time, surprisingly few claims are filed. Only 2 percent of people injured by physicians' negligence seek compensation through a lawsuit (according to a 1991 article in the New England Journal of Medicine). A separate report from the Harvard School of Public Health ("Harvard Medical Practice Study") found slightly higher numbers. Their research found that only one in eight patients that suffers due to medical negligence ever files a lawsuit and only one in sixteen recovers any damages. However, despite the slightly higher percentage, the study concluded, "Our data make clear, then, that the focus of legislative concern should be that the malpractice system is too inaccessible, rather than too accessible, to the victims of negligent medical treatment.""

http://www.consumerlaw.com/medical.html

2/2/2006 1:06:14 PM

So how would this socialized healthcare system work? It would basically destroy the insurance industries (which would mean the loss of jobs) and taxes would have to be increased to fund such as system. Aside from the fact that the federal government would be raping our wallets even more than they already do, we will have the federal government receiving even more money which means more waste.

2/2/2006 1:30:46 PM

guess what

no

2/2/2006 1:57:32 PM

^^ I'm not gonna rehash the broken window argument, but for fuck's sake, would you complain if there were a cure to all disease because it would put doctors out of business?

2/2/2006 2:00:33 PM

Quote :

"Only 2 percent of people injured by physicians' negligence seek compensation through a lawsuit (according to a 1991 article in the New England Journal of Medicine). "

STOP WITH ALL THAT FUZZY MATH

2/2/2006 2:01:18 PM

I'll restate:

Quote :

"I've got no problem paying 50% of my paycheck to the govt. as long as I feel like my money is going towards something that is beneficial to society and to myself."

Of course I'm not interested in throwing half the money I make to taxes if I feel like the government is going to screw me over.

Quote :

"Aside from the fact that the federal government would be raping our wallets even more than they already do, we will have the federal government receiving even more money which means more waste."

And HMOs and health insurance providers aren't already doing that? I like the idea of Govt running it, because then they have to provide the service to everyone, no one gets left out.

There is tons of wasteful spending in the govt currently, and there needs to be reforms on it. Again, I'm not providing a solution or "roadmap" on how to reform the govt from Point A where we are now to Point B which is how I think it should be. I'm merely providing a direction in which we should move.

Christ, I don't think anyone has a good idea on how to make sweeping reforms in our current government. Personally I'd start with redrafting a new constitution. I don't really think anyone intended it to last this long anyway. At least some major editing is needed.

2/2/2006 2:54:39 PM

Quote :

"would you complain if there were a cure to all disease because it would put doctors out of business?"

Yes. Diseases keep the human population in check. If there were no diseases, then there would be a population explosion and we would all wallow in misery.

Quote :

""I've got no problem paying 50% of my paycheck to the govt. as long as I feel like my money is going towards something that is beneficial to society and to myself.""

Well I do. I want to keep as much of my money as possible, and only pay taxes to run essential functions of the government. The governments purpose is to protect against rights being infringed upon. Healthcare is not a right, nor will it ever be one.

Quote :

"And HMOs and health insurance providers aren't already doing that?"

Only if you pay them.

Quote :

" I like the idea of Govt running it, because then they have to provide the service to everyone, no one gets left out."

Yeah, except I don't wish to pay for everyone elses living expenses. I only wish to pay for my own. The rich/middle classes shouldn't be saddled with the burden of the poor. I'm not concerned with people getting left out. Lifes not fair, get over it.

Quote :

"There is tons of wasteful spending in the govt currently, and there needs to be reforms on it"

There can be no reform except axeing the program that is eating up money. Giving the federal government more money is not a smart way of fixing wasteful spending. Of course, socialists feel they can fix anything if they throw enough money at it.

Quote :

"I'm merely providing a direction in which we should move."

More socialism is not a good direction to move the country in.

Quote :

"Christ, I don't think anyone has a good idea on how to make sweeping reforms in our current government. Personally I'd start with redrafting a new constitution. I don't really think anyone intended it to last this long anyway."

I agree with this, but I would be afriad that the socialists would try to hijack it by trying to make healthcare, educations, etc. rights. Until the socialists are relegated to a smalle minority in this country, then I think we will have to make do with what we have.

2/2/2006 3:38:02 PM

Quote :

"Yes. Diseases keep the human population in check. If there were no diseases, then there would be a population explosion and we would all wallow in misery."

Quote :

"would you complain if there were a cure to all disease because it would put doctors out of business?"

Need to holla at some reading comprehension, son.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 4:01 PM. Reason : BITCHCANIHOLLAATCHA]

2/2/2006 4:01:04 PM

Quote :

"Need to holla at some reading comprehension, son."

FIne then. Yes, because it would destroy the pharmasuetucal (sp) industries along with other industries as well. In addition to what I said before.

2/2/2006 4:03:38 PM

So you're against social welfare but for the propping up of industries that capitalize off of a problem.

I take it you're against cars that work well, because they take money out of the pockets of mechanics?

You're against people who obey the law, because they decrease the need for a police force?

You're against anything getting better if anybody makes money off the fact that it's bad?


I would also mention that, in the fairtax thread, you said you would be in favor of a flat tax. This would completely make obsolete the tax industry, which employs god knows how many people in America. Do you think we should retain our complicated, flawed tax system to keep the local manager of H&R Block in a Beamer?

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 4:14 PM. Reason : asd]

2/2/2006 4:07:27 PM

Gee, Sayer, google "poverty obesity" check the second link or nearly every link after that. The are all about "The Paradox of Obesity and Poverty"

You got it right on the head: Poor people eat cheap food, which tends to make them FAT.

America cannot fix the world's problems. 9 out of 10 times, our help ends up hurting everyone else. (remember all the consturnation about the US giving away tons of wheat every year? "It wrecks the lives of poor third-world farmers."

Quote :

"Even if we go along with the "Fuck the homeless. They obviously made some choices and are there for a reason. "But alas, according to you, they're not our responsibility. Fuck them. "

What the frack? All I said is that "I don't see why we need to nationalize half the economy just to provide for people that are already being provided for."
If you don't feel they are sufficiently being taken care of then raise some funds and take care of them. If only the government can do it, then have them do it. Act in proportion to the problem. Like you admitted, of course, we have free shelters across the country (there are three in downtown Raleigh, plenty of empty beds and food). Take some time to volunteer to help the poor. As a reasonable person, I have helped out on rare occasions, hope to see you there sometime.

Quote :

"Side Note: Water is great and clean everywhere? You must not travel much. Straight from the NRDC about a survey of the drinking water in just 19 cities in the US:"

So, let me get this straight. You call for the nationalization of the "Water" industries of this nation because only the government can do a good job at this. Then, when I point out that it has already been done to the point that nearly every water distribution system in this country is government managed, you turn around and proclaim that the system sucks and is potentially killing us.

What The Fuck!?!? You want to nationalize every other industry so they can be just as reliant on World War I-era systems as the already government-run water industry?

2/2/2006 4:16:07 PM

Protostar: Ending Human Suffering Due to Disease << Corporate Success

Biggest L libertarian in existence.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 4:47 PM. Reason : fuck yo code, nigga]

2/2/2006 4:47:42 PM

^not to mention his hero is pinochet

its ok to purge opponents to acheive the absolute highest profits

2/2/2006 4:54:36 PM

^^ Stop calling him a libertarian! You insult us all!

2/2/2006 5:35:04 PM

if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

2/2/2006 7:19:21 PM

Quote :

"Food - In a world where we are perfectly capable of growing enough food to feed everyone, I feel like no one should go hungry or starve. Granted the problem at that point isn't production but distribution. However, subsidizing farmer's NOT to grow shit has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I feel like from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor, everyone should get enough food to live. Past that, if you want to go out and buy more shit to eat, you're more than welcome to. But no one should have to starve."

Lets get back to reality here. Starvation is not a problem in this country.

2/2/2006 8:08:56 PM

Quote :

" Ending Human Suffering Due to Disease << Corporate Success"

If there was no disease then we would all suffer from the effects of overpopulation. I would rather some people suffer in misery than all of us to suffer due to a population explosion.

Quote :

"its ok to purge opponents to acheive the absolute highest profits"

I never condoned this. I just commented on the fact that his purging of leftists was very effective. I very him as ONE of my heroes for his wonderful economic policies. Never said what he did was right, just said it was effective.

2/2/2006 8:31:24 PM

Quote :

"Protostar: If there was no disease then we would all suffer from the effects of overpopulation. I would rather some people suffer in misery than all of us to suffer due to a population explosion."

What happened to your unwavering belief in the ability of the private sector to solve our problems, little buddy? The point has been made repeatedly that we have enough food on Earth to feed everyone as it is, but lack the capacity to distribute it all. That represents the paramount of financial opportunity to any firm that can figure out how to solve it.

That doesn't change even if we drastically decrease the death rate. There is still plenty of aerable land on the Earth, and there have been tremendous advancements in increasing yields from practically every form of food production there is. The private sector can handle this.

But if your issue is one of overcrowding...

First of all, there's plenty of room left on the surface of the Earth itself. All it needs is a little development. George Carlin suggests beginning by constructing low-cost housing on all the golf courses in America. Not a bad idea, really.

Second of all, there's plenty of room under the oceans. In fact, there's more room under them than on all the surface of the Earth that humans currently occupy. Again, all it needs is a little development.

Thirdly, look up. See that? There's practically an infinite amount of space up there to stick us. All we need to do is get working on how to put colonies of people out there.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 8:48 PM. Reason : ...]

2/2/2006 8:44:35 PM

Quote :

"So you're against social welfare but for the propping up of industries that capitalize off of a problem. I take it you're against cars that work well, because they take money out of the pockets of mechanics? You're against people who obey the law, because they decrease the need for a police force? You're against anything getting better if anybody makes money off the fact that it's bad? I would also mention that, in the fairtax thread, you said you would be in favor of a flat tax. This would completely make obsolete the tax industry, which employs god knows how many people in America. Do you think we should retain our complicated, flawed tax system to keep the local manager of H&R Block in a Beamer?"

2/2/2006 8:45:55 PM

He'd look a lot smarter if he'd read (or understood) the broken window parable.

[Edited on February 2, 2006 at 8:50 PM. Reason : tenses are fun times]

2/2/2006 8:49:56 PM

He'd look a lot smarter if he stopped posting.

2/2/2006 8:51:50 PM

Spookyjon:

Quote :

"So you're against social welfare but for the propping up of industries that capitalize off of a problem. I take it you're against cars that work well, because they take money out of the pockets of mechanics? You're against people who obey the law, because they decrease the need for a police force? You're against anything getting better if anybody makes money off the fact that it's bad? I would also mention that, in the fairtax thread, you said you would be in favor of a flat tax. This would completely make obsolete the tax industry, which employs god knows how many people in America. Do you think we should retain our complicated, flawed tax system to keep the local manager of H&R Block in a Beamer?"

I'm for getting the government out of people's lives as much as possible. There should be NO government interference in the economy whatsoever. Socialized healthcare would be government interference in the economy. I am not for propping up industries at all. I hate the idea of corporate welfare as much as I hate the idea of social welfare. I am in favor of true, uninhibited, unregulated capitalism. So yes, I would support getting rid of the tax laws even if it meant people losing their jobs. The government shouldn't be employing people just to employ them, they should have a purpose and if the taxes laws were revised then their purpose would be rendered obsolete. Socialized healthcare would equal more government inteference in our lives (BAD), flat tax would equal less government interference in our lives (GOOD). I DONOT support the government destroying industries simply because YOU feel it would make life easier for SOME people while making it more difficult for others (in the form of higher taxes).

2/2/2006 10:07:37 PM

Quote :

"I'm for getting the government out of people's lives as much as possible."

Not a problem. The next time you get in a car wreck, and you're laying there on the pavement suffering from serious trauma, please make sure you don't call 911, since they are a government provided service. Also please make sure you don't get on the ambulance that is dispatched to save you, since that is also a government service as well. I think this would be a great way for you to voice your disdain of government provided services.

Or, why don't you march down to the Cashier's office tomorrow and demand to pay the part of your tuition that is subsidized by the government? I bet you absolutely hate the fact they do that for you. I'm sure the government and the Cashier's office will be more than happy to take all that $$ off you and help you support the Bigass L cause.

Quote :

"The government shouldn't be employing people just to employ them, they should have a purpose"

Uh yeah, the purpose being to provide a valuable service. You can't argue there is no value in having a healthy population. You can't argue there is no value in having an educated population.

Quote :

"What The Fuck!?!? You want to nationalize every other industry so they can be just as reliant on World War I-era systems as the already government-run water industry?"

I've never once made the claim that we are running ANY government provided service correctly right now. In fact, I feel like I've made it quite clear in the post about poor people that the "social welfare" this country attempts to provide is a fucking joke and ineffective at combating the problems.

If we're going to do something, we need to do it the correct way. We do not need to half-ass it and then wonder later why it sucks.

2/3/2006 12:53:46 AM

Quote :

"Not a problem. The next time you get in a car wreck, and you're laying there on the pavement suffering from serious trauma, please make sure you don't call 911, since they are a government provided service. Also please make sure you don't get on the ambulance that is dispatched to save you, since that is also a government service as well. I think this would be a great way for you to voice your disdain of government provided services. Or, why don't you march down to the Cashier's office tomorrow and demand to pay the part of your tuition that is subsidized by the government? I bet you absolutely hate the fact they do that for you. I'm sure the government and the Cashier's office will be more than happy to take all that $$ off you and help you support the Bigass L cause."

What a fucking stupid way to look at things. Just because I use it, means I have no right to critize it? The less money the government receives, the better as it equates to less waste. All of the services you just named could be easily provided by private entities, BTW.

Quote :

"Uh yeah, the purpose being to provide a valuable service. You can't argue there is no value in having a healthy population. You can't argue there is no value in having an educated population."

A service that could be provided by private entities. I'm not concerned about those who donot have healthcare, they plights are not my problem. It is my problem when the utopian socialists step in and try to get me and everyone else to pay for their living expenses. If you want that shit GTFO of the US, and move to France or some other hippie dippy socialist paradise. I'm sure you'll fit right it.

2/3/2006 1:25:57 AM

Quote :

"e. Also please make sure you don't get on the ambulance that is dispatched to save you, since that is also a government service as well. "

Most ambulances are private companies/owned by the hospital. That's why you get a bill for the ambulence ride.

2/3/2006 2:06:29 AM

You ride on government roads.

2/3/2006 2:09:05 AM

Quote :

"I've never once made the claim that we are running ANY government provided service correctly right now. In fact, I feel like I've made it quite clear in the post about poor people that the "social welfare" this country attempts to provide is a fucking joke and ineffective at combating the problems."

And you would fix it, how? The only shit you listed was nationalizing most of the economy. I don't see how that houses the homeless, feeds the obese, or makes our water any cleaner.

Countries that have nationalized these industries ruined them. The only industry the US has nationalized, water, evidently sucks by your reconing. So how is this an argument in favor of more siezures?

You want the government to provide energy and water. Well, where I live, my government does provide the energy and water. I get a bill every month from the city of Clayton. My City Council has seen fit to not only tax us for power (the city spends tax dollars providing electricity and water) and our light bill is STILL 30% more per-kilowatt than Progress Energy.

So I don't see it. Just because the "government runs it" doesn't make it free, fair, or equitable. And it damn sure does not make it efficient.

Yes, in the current system you can only have "the good life" if you are lucky enough to find a job and earn to pay for it. Those who earn most live best.
In your ideal world, you could only have "the good life" if you are lucky enough to be politically connected. Those who command most live best. The beurocrat responsible for assigning everyone a place to live is going to assign himself and his friends first.

As for our system, if you EVER find someone, homeless or otherwise, about the starve to death, give me a call. I'll come right over and take them home with me if necessary. No one should EVER die in this country for lack of necessities and if they ever do it is OUR fault for not taking responsibility for our fellow citizens.

2/3/2006 2:15:11 AM

Quote :

"And you would fix it, how? The only shit you listed was nationalizing most of the economy. I don't see how that houses the homeless, feeds the obese, or makes our water any cleaner."

*sigh* Since this was obviously missed, I'll quote what I said eariler:

Quote :

"There is tons of wasteful spending in the govt currently, and there needs to be reforms on it. Again, I'm not providing a solution or "roadmap" on how to reform the govt from Point A where we are now to Point B which is how I think it should be. I'm merely providing a direction in which we should move. Christ, I don't think anyone has a good idea on how to make sweeping reforms in our current government. Personally I'd start with redrafting a new constitution. I don't really think anyone intended it to last this long anyway. At least some major editing is needed."

Made it very clear that I'm not providing a "Sayer's Guide to Social Revolution and Reform." Check your local bookstore next year, my publisher should have it out by then.

Quote :

"The only shit you listed was nationalizing most of the economy."

Including government, the sectors I listed account for (and I will round up) 25% of the economy. Clearly it will destroy the entirety of American life. Most of the country will lose their jobs and we will all suffer the fate of the Soviet Union. (Stat was found on the Beurau of Economic Statistics site, http://www.bea.gov)

Quote :

"Countries that have nationalized these industries ruined them. The only industry the US has nationalized, water, evidently sucks by your reconing. So how is this an argument in favor of more siezures?"

Which country has the healthiest population in the world? Sweeden. Which country has the most educated population in the world? Finland. Which country ranks highest in the UN Human Development Index? Norway. Both Finland and Sweeden are in the top 3 with the US in the Growth Competitive Index for 2005.

Why do I bring up Sweeden, Finland, and for shits and giggles lets throw in Norway in there too? Ahh, they have well developed social systems like the one I have described already.

Clearly the only thing socialism can do is fail and drive us all into ruin.

Quote :

"As for our system, if you EVER find someone, homeless or otherwise, about the starve to death, give me a call. I'll come right over and take them home with me if necessary. No one should EVER die in this country for lack of necessities and if they ever do it is OUR fault for not taking responsibility for our fellow citizens."

Well... while I may not agree with your point of view on the economy, I will acknoweldge that you are at least human, and care. That sir, puts you a cut above some people in this thread. And I tip my hat.

2/3/2006 8:15:29 AM

Quote :

"Why do I bring up Sweeden, Finland, and for shits and giggles lets throw in Norway in there too? Ahh, they have well developed social systems like the one I have described already."

Ha ha! Not one of them has nationalized their housing, food, or even water industries. In many respects, our water industry is more "government run" than theirs! HA HA! I say HA HA to you sir!
They are anything but "socialist." They merely have an all encumpassing welfare state. Hell, some of them have BETTER economic freedom ratings than the US of A! Their corporate tax rates are LOWER than ours, Finlands is almost half! Their regulation regimes were not crafted by special-interest driven beurocrats, and actually make sense! Compared to the US, the countries you listed are havens of corporate liberty. The Finish government consumed 22.4% of the Economy! The various levels of US Government already consume nearly 40%!!! Their government is HALF the size of ours!

So Please! Hold those countries up as examples for us all to follow! I would love lower taxes, dramatically smaller government, and wiser/smarter and therefore less economic regulation.

2/3/2006 10:40:31 AM

"Like" = "Identical"

I say READING COMPREHENSION to you, sir.

2/3/2006 1:37:02 PM

Yeah, what ^ said.

I never said anything about socializing the private sector. I'm completely in favor of keeping the capitalistic system in place over everything else.

What I envision is sorta a socialism/capitalism hybrid. Taking the strengths of both, and using them to better the country. I don't feel like we're doing a good job of running the "social welfare" system we've got right now. It could be done 20x better.

My point of bringing up Finland and the rest of the Nordic system was to illustrate that social systems can be run, and run very well in conjunction with a capitalist system in the private sector.

I never said anything about socializing everything...

2/3/2006 3:48:15 PM

Protostar

Quote :

"What happened to your unwavering belief in the ability of the private sector to solve our problems, little buddy? The point has been made repeatedly that we have enough food on Earth to feed everyone as it is, but lack the capacity to distribute it all. That represents the paramount of financial opportunity to any firm that can figure out how to solve it. That doesn't change even if we drastically decrease the death rate. There is still plenty of aerable land on the Earth, and there have been tremendous advancements in increasing yields from practically every form of food production there is. The private sector can handle this. But if your issue is one of overcrowding... First of all, there's plenty of room left on the surface of the Earth itself. All it needs is a little development. George Carlin suggests beginning by constructing low-cost housing on all the golf courses in America. Not a bad idea, really. Second of all, there's plenty of room under the oceans. In fact, there's more room under them than on all the surface of the Earth that humans currently occupy. Again, all it needs is a little development. Thirdly, look up. See that? There's practically an infinite amount of space up there to stick us. All we need to do is get working on how to put colonies of people out there."

I'm still waiting to hear how you can possibly defend your preference that corporations succeed over the complete ending of suffering due to disease on any grounds.

2/3/2006 5:26:09 PM

Quote :

"I never said anything about socializing everything..."

...yeah, you pretty much did.

Quote :

"Things I think should be socialized: Healthcare - Every person should have the right to be healthy, period. Your health shouldn't be dependant on how much money you make or how much money you have. Clean Water - Everyone should have access in their home to clean water. Unsanitary H2O only increases the spread of disease. No one should be making money off of providing humanity with a basic resource such as water. Education - Knoweldge should be freely available to all. No matter what a person's economic background, everyone should be entitled to it. It should also function in a manner supportive of itself. Ie: politicians shouldn't pick a cirriculum, but rather those at the top levels of the academic fields themselves. They're the ones with the expertise. Education doesn't stop at high school either. College and adult education services should be provided as well. Food - In a world where we are perfectly capable of growing enough food to feed everyone, I feel like no one should go hungry or starve. Granted the problem at that point isn't production but distribution. However, subsidizing farmer's NOT to grow shit has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. I feel like from the richest of the rich to the poorest of the poor, everyone should get enough food to live. Past that, if you want to go out and buy more shit to eat, you're more than welcome to. But no one should have to starve. Shelter - Granted, I'm not saying give every homeless person in America a mansion or even a 2 bedroom house. What I am saying is that regardless of economic status, people need to have a roof over their head. We call them Homeless shelters today, but I don't think we've got the right idea 100%. No one who is homeless has much of an oppertunity to move at all up the ladder without at least some basic place to call home. Energy - If everything above is close to the center of the socialistic idea that I have in my head, this one is closer to the edge. Some friends and I have talked about it and it seemed like eventually it would be neccessary to include this one in there as well. Gamecat may be able to remember what we said about this one, or I might remember in detail later. In the end: I've got no problem paying 50% of my paycheck to the govt. as long as I feel like my money is going towards something that is beneficial to society and to myself. "

Thats crazy-talk, btw. Our economy would go the way of France's. Or worse, some shitty South American country's.

2/3/2006 5:55:08 PM

^Exactly. I'm glad to see there are people with common sense in this thread, and don't have their heads stuck in the clouds.

2/3/2006 6:04:06 PM