|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 11, 2015 12:23:18 GMT -5
www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htmOn his official website, as far as I could see, he did not have a clarified stance on gun control. His voting record on guns is interesting since he comes from Vermont that likes their right to bear arms. www.nationalreview.com/corner/381136/vermont-safe-and-happy-and-armed-teeth-charles-c-w-cookeSo what you have is a progressive on economic issues, and a centrist on gun ownership. I can live with that. The most important issues, and this is why I support Bernie Sanders, is the need to reinstate important laws like Glass Steagall, and getting the corruption out of politics. I'm a regular visitor of nbcnews and there's been a media blackout of any headlines about him for a month. Gee, I wonder why. The term assault rile is dishonest spin perpetuated by the media anyway. All weapons receive this definition regardless of the weapon's capability. It's also the only item that when used to commit crime, the word assault is attached to it, as if that's the only thing anyone can do with a gun. When a pedestrian is hit by a bicycle or a car and they take off, we call it a hit and run. Why not call it a shoot and run? Would be a more literal accurate description for most shootings in America. Bernie Sanders is a gun grabbing socialist. America loves its socialist programs, no need to be ashamed. From what a remember, the term for Assault Weapon was basically anything besides a handgun that fires semi-auto or faster. Hell, even "emperor obama" hasn't suggested much more than simply banning semi-auto non handguns, closing gunshow loopholes for background checks, and banning high capacity magazines. Both of which wouldn't be enough to prevent mass shootings, but would reduce the lethality of a mass shooter. Your idea for car hitting someone being called a shoot and run makes no sense because a hit and run doesn't necessarily involve any shooting. Where as from what I remember "assault weapon" is used to describe any non-handgun that shoots semi-auto or faster. It just doesn't really make sense that anyone would need anything more than a handgun or shotgun with regards to self defense. If you are in a situation where you need more lethality than that to defend yourself than you are already probably going to get killed regardless of how lethal a weapon you have. www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htmOn his official website, as far as I could see, he did not have a clarified stance on gun control. His voting record on guns is interesting since he comes from Vermont that likes their right to bear arms. www.nationalreview.com/corner/381136/vermont-safe-and-happy-and-armed-teeth-charles-c-w-cookeSo what you have is a progressive on economic issues, and a centrist on gun ownership. I can live with that. The most important issues, and this is why I support Bernie Sanders, is the need to reinstate important laws like Glass Steagall, and getting the corruption out of politics. I'm a regular visitor of nbcnews and there's been a media blackout of any headlines about him for a month. Gee, I wonder why. The term assault rile is dishonest spin perpetuated by the media anyway. All weapons receive this definition regardless of the weapon's capability. It's also the only item that when used to commit crime, the word assault is attached to it, as if that's the only thing anyone can do with a gun. When a pedestrian is hit by a bicycle or a car and they take off, we call it a hit and run. Why not call it a shoot and run? Would be a more literal accurate description for most shootings in America. America loves its socialist programs, no need to be ashamed. There's every need to be ashamed when the supposedly libertarian party of the authoritarian vs libertarian ideology line supports socialist programs like Medicaid, the FDIC... Gosh dang Neocons. The position should be "get government hands out of civil society," IMO. The way "progressive" is used in modern political discourse insinuates a lot of untrue things. That aside, one should look to the merits of the policies / ideologies themselves rather than the label associated with them. We seem to agree on this point, since you talk about the dishonest spin because of the negative connotations of the word "assault." But, I agree, Sanders is getting the media blackout (too strong a word?) because the Democratic party leadership is upset he's doing so good. After all, they didn't ordain him from on high, and he overthrows maybe like one or two of their key positions. Same with Trump, he's self-made and doesn't hold all the positions the Republican party leadership wants, and it drives them crazy, but I don't really watch cable news so I don't know the proportion of his coverage. The reason Trump and Sanders get the cold shoulder from establishment has more to do with each side's establishment's belief of electability with regards to non-establishment positions. With republicans it has more to do with preferrence to dog whistle their position while with democrats it has more to do with their obsession with compromising on their positions.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 11, 2015 13:32:43 GMT -5
www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htmOn his official website, as far as I could see, he did not have a clarified stance on gun control. His voting record on guns is interesting since he comes from Vermont that likes their right to bear arms. www.nationalreview.com/corner/381136/vermont-safe-and-happy-and-armed-teeth-charles-c-w-cookeSo what you have is a progressive on economic issues, and a centrist on gun ownership. I can live with that. The most important issues, and this is why I support Bernie Sanders, is the need to reinstate important laws like Glass Steagall, and getting the corruption out of politics. I'm a regular visitor of nbcnews and there's been a media blackout of any headlines about him for a month. Gee, I wonder why. The term assault rile is dishonest spin perpetuated by the media anyway. All weapons receive this definition regardless of the weapon's capability. It's also the only item that when used to commit crime, the word assault is attached to it, as if that's the only thing anyone can do with a gun. When a pedestrian is hit by a bicycle or a car and they take off, we call it a hit and run. Why not call it a shoot and run? Would be a more literal accurate description for most shootings in America. America loves its socialist programs, no need to be ashamed. There's every need to be ashamed when the supposedly libertarian party of the authoritarian vs libertarian ideology line supports socialist programs like Medicaid, the FDIC... Gosh dang Neocons. The position should be "get government hands out of civil society," IMO. The way "progressive" is used in modern political discourse insinuates a lot of untrue things. That aside, one should look to the merits of the policies / ideologies themselves rather than the label associated with them. We seem to agree on this point, since you talk about the dishonest spin because of the negative connotations of the word "assault." But, I agree, Sanders is getting the media blackout (too strong a word?) because the Democratic party leadership is upset he's doing so good. After all, they didn't ordain him from on high, and he overthrows maybe like one or two of their key positions. Same with Trump, he's self-made and doesn't hold all the positions the Republican party leadership wants, and it drives them crazy, but I don't really watch cable news so I don't know the proportion of his coverage. I wouldn't really call Trump self-made, but whatever, the reason the GOP doesn't want him is because he's a nut. But as for media coverage Trump is the exact opposite of being blacked out, he's almost the entirety of coverage, because he puts his foot in his mouth and doesn't care.
|
|
Slick
True Bro
Taking the piss
Posts: 1,015
|
Post by Slick on Oct 11, 2015 14:09:36 GMT -5
dunsparceflinch, when I jokingly suggested the term "shoot and run", that was in reference strictly to gun crimes. It was not readily clear what I meant and I apologize for that. When a gun is used in crime, the media loves to use the term "assault rifle" I've never heard of a reckless bicyclist hit somebody and then hear on the news that police confiscated an "assault bicycle". I understand why individuals don't like government intervention in the form of social programs; there's a lot of abuse of these programs that make it on the news. Not even democrats like to admit this corruption exists. I've seen those videos of fit, healthy 20 year old's doing push-ups in front of government assistance buildings looking to get their "Obama bucks". The process isn't perfect. These programs are important, however to those that actually do have actual disabilities and financial difficulties. Fraud is against the law. The government and the people that enable this behavior, should take fraud more seriously than they currently do, because that's just extra unwarranted burden on the taxpayers. Abuse of the political process is real. www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Fortune-tax-corporate-GE/2015/04/14/id/638367/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.htmlMost corporate interests do not match the interests of the everyday people.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 11, 2015 14:35:24 GMT -5
dunsparceflinch, when I jokingly suggested the term "shoot and run", that was in reference strictly to gun crimes. It was not readily clear what I meant and I apologize for that. When a gun is used in crime, the media loves to use the term "assault rifle" I've never heard of a reckless bicyclist hit somebody and then hear on the news that police confiscated an "assault bicycle". I understand why individuals don't like government intervention in the form of social programs; there's a lot of abuse of these programs that make it on the news. Not even democrats like to admit this corruption exists. I've seen those videos of fit, healthy 20 year old's doing push-ups in front of government assistance buildings looking to get their "Obama bucks". The process isn't perfect. These programs are important, however to those that actually do have actual disabilities and financial difficulties. Fraud is against the law. The government and the people that enable this behavior, should take fraud more seriously than they currently do, because that's just extra unwarranted burden on the taxpayers. Abuse of the political process is real. www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Fortune-tax-corporate-GE/2015/04/14/id/638367/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.htmlMost corporate interests do not match the interests of the everyday people. Civil society runs social programs far better than the welfare state, though, because they have accountability through failure mechanisms. Social security is a prime example: fraternal societies of pre-FDIC were a mutual-aid system that had next to zero corruption, and cared for people with a sensitivity and personality that is bereft in any bureaucratic establishment. You can find all sorts of stuff on them in sociological journals / books. Sadly, one can't compete with "free." But, hey, we completely agree on abuse of the political process! Living in Illinois, where professional politics is our culture, I'm faced with it 24/7. There's almost no correlation between popular opinion and policy like there is between the elites / people with money's opinion and policy that gets passed. Our diagnoses for what to do about abuse probably differ. I'm gonna say that, no matter how much accountability programs you set up in a bureaucratic fashion, there's ALWAYS a way for interest groups to slip incentives to politicians, no matter what. Limiting campaign donations will only make the incumbent more powerful, and doesn't stop under-the-table deals. Furthermore, there are lobbyists on both sides, so neither of them want to shoot themselves in the foot financially or professionally. The political class, because of these things and so many others, is naturally incentivized to increase its member's power. The only way to get rid of this stuff entirely is to abolish the monopoly of force (the modern Hobbesian state etc.) and become a stateless society.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 11, 2015 17:15:15 GMT -5
I've been trying to think of a kind way of saying "That's fucking retarded" but I can't. That's fucking retarded.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 13, 2015 13:42:20 GMT -5
dunsparceflinch, when I jokingly suggested the term "shoot and run", that was in reference strictly to gun crimes. It was not readily clear what I meant and I apologize for that. When a gun is used in crime, the media loves to use the term "assault rifle" I've never heard of a reckless bicyclist hit somebody and then hear on the news that police confiscated an "assault bicycle". I understand why individuals don't like government intervention in the form of social programs; there's a lot of abuse of these programs that make it on the news. Not even democrats like to admit this corruption exists. I've seen those videos of fit, healthy 20 year old's doing push-ups in front of government assistance buildings looking to get their "Obama bucks". The process isn't perfect. These programs are important, however to those that actually do have actual disabilities and financial difficulties. Fraud is against the law. The government and the people that enable this behavior, should take fraud more seriously than they currently do, because that's just extra unwarranted burden on the taxpayers. Abuse of the political process is real. www.newsmax.com/Finance/StreetTalk/Fortune-tax-corporate-GE/2015/04/14/id/638367/www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/11/us/politics/2016-presidential-election-super-pac-donors.htmlMost corporate interests do not match the interests of the everyday people. You don't hear the news call a bike an assault bike because there is no such thing as a bike designed around lethality. Whereas semi-auto rifles are specifically designed around increased lethality. That's a big difference that can't be overlooked. With regards to government programs, I also get that corruption is a bad thing, but: 1) corruption that can't be fixed directly through the people occurs in private industries as well. 2) ideally when a government program has corruption, the solution should be to replace the people who are responsible for said corruption, not privatize the program. Even in cases of widespread corruption, the solution should be about tackling the corruption rather than assuming that a non-corrupt version is impossible. And anecdotes about people abusing a system doesn't mean that abuse is widespread. Even in your example, for all you know their disability revolves around something psychological rather than physical. Jaedrik, your idea of privatization fails to account for the existence of corruption within private industries as well as the fact that private organizations' motive of exponentially increasing profit leads to screwed up priorities in and of itself whereas a government entity's motivation is to simply keep the organization afloat. A great example of this would be health insurance because as everyone knows, the average American pays more for health insurance than residents of other countries, yet has worse infant mortality rates and worse coverage. There is also sometimes the need to have something involve the government because a government entity has more push than a private organization. A great example of this would be insurance with regards to pharmaceuticals. Government negotiatiors pretty much always manage to get total costs (as in how much the patient pays + how much insurance pays) lower than private negotiators. And of course it's not even simply privatized vs socialized. Sometimes the best solution is to have government regulations of an industry to INCREASE viable competition. Just look at the telecom industries in the US compared to nearly every other country. It's even gotten to the point where different telecom corporations in the U.S. will implicitly agree to not compete with one another by making sure to have no overlap in covered regions. This is because there are much tighter regulations on telecoms in other countries.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 13, 2015 19:28:40 GMT -5
The problem with "assault" is that it's generally just referring to scary black guns. I mean places like Cali and NY classify things like grips as defining characteristics of being more lethal. Sorry, an adjustable stock, pistol grips, forward grips, flash suppressors etc...don't make a gun any more lethal, it's for making it more comfortable to shoot. Especially because most rifles used for hunting use much larger calibers, shotguns are more lethal in many ranges, and pistols account for some 90% of homicides using a firearm.
It really does amount to "security theater". Banning "assault weapons" isn't going to make people safer, it just makes people feel safer. Sure homicides went down under the 94 assault weapon ban, but it was going down before and it continued to go down after it expired. Because there's a cause and effect to all crimes, and when you start to address the Cause of crime, the Effect of crime goes down. And while access to firearms is certainly part of the lethality of crimes, it isn't what causes crime.
Other than that I agree with the rest of your post.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 13, 2015 19:29:24 GMT -5
Jaedrik, your idea of privatization fails to account for the existence of corruption within private industries as well as the fact that private organizations' motive of exponentially increasing profit leads to screwed up priorities in and of itself whereas a government entity's motivation is to simply keep the organization afloat. I hope we mean the same thing by corruption, but I'll agree entirely on that, anyone can be corrupt. There can't be a paradise on this earth precisely because of that. No system is perfect, not even close, but the free market is a system which more often than government ensures moral normalcy is upheld, therefore it should permeate all sectors of economy and life. Oddly, I'm going to claim the side of being the realist here, in contrast to your seeming utopian idealism. Your ideas of the incentives behind government and the market are lacking. First, you assert but don't bother to prove: pursuit of profit inherently leads to foxtrotting up morally by having bad priorities. Okay, but that makes it sound like you're pre-defining profit-seeking as immoral, and that sounds circular. Do you care to explain explicitly how profit seeking inherently leads to said poor priorities? Or perhaps the incentives surrounding profit which are inherently perverse? Secondly, your ideas of the government's incentives (you only site one possible) are hilariously naive. I don't mean to insult you, but such a vast inconsistency needs to be pointed out as plainly as possible. You assume the profit-seeking motive simply goes out the window when dealing with government structures and officials. Are the people who run the government above all the trappings of private men? No, that's stupid, they can be just as corrupt for the same reasons. In the case of a republic, the politicians have incentive to get elected, or re-elected. Acknowledging that the majority of people can be morally in the wrong on a number of issues necessitates that some politicians, in seeking to further their career, will pander to them. Grant, further, no matter how stringent the overwatch, no matter how strict the structural accountability, any number of individuals or institutions could, uh, persuade or incentivize their elected officials through various means, not to mention the fact that politicians have incentive to reduce the overwatch so they can further themselves and you can see why we don't have a better system. Furthermore, what about the desire for power? Why can't a politician or the political class or the establishment have aspirations for ever-increasing power? This is just the profit motive in another light. I shouldn't have to go over the corruption that permeates through every other form of government. If private people aren't immune, then neither are public people. If anything, the inherently compulsory nature of the modern Hobbesian state leads to messing up morally, and that's not pre-definition or circular logic, that's merely the result of their incentive structure given that humans are corruptible. They have no universal failure mechanism, sure particular instances might but they are rare, they have no accountability save that self-imposed, and most would like to remain unaccountable according to their incentives to increase in power, and they have every incentive to build up a culture of worship around themselves to perpetuate the myth of their moral supremacy as guardians of the people. The free market, on the other hand, owing to its non-compulsory and free-exchange nature, has a universal and unavoidable failure mechanism with direct accountability to the people in society: loss, for whatever reason. Who is this everyone? I won't question your statistics, their methodologies, their interests etc., then, but there's still many grounds for objection. The great cost of health insurance in America is precisely because of government intervention, rather than in spite of it. Here's a 2009 daily talking about it: mises.org/library/health-insurance-market-not-freeIt's impossible for central, socialized agents to economically calculate, as Mises proved in that Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth pdf I linked in the thread earlier. www.mises.org/library/economic-calculation-socialist-commonwealthtl;dr - In the absence of private ownership of the means of production, the free-market process of pricing said capital is also absent. Necessarily, this means there is no way to calculate rationally and thus no way to tell which method for allocating resources or techniques or use of capital is more efficient. That being said, that government negotiator is a pseudo-private negotiator in a pseudo-private system of health care. These articles explain well why pharmaceuticals are so expensive, turns out because of government again. I'll give you a tl;dr. mises.org/library/pharmaceutical-prices-patents-and-fdamises.org/blog/yet-another-way-government-drives-pharmaceutical-pricesThe first one basically says they're high because of companies lobbying the FDA (along with their numerous ridiculous regulation) and patents providing monopolies. The second provides a recent, specific example of the FDA's meddling. This video provides a good example of a free-market solution succeeding in spite of Now, before you object to the links provided, I acknowledge it's not metaphysically impossible that health care could be more expensive under the free market, however given the incentive structure of said free market prices would most, most likely go down. The scenarios which it would most likely go up in is if there was some calamity or disaster in which people prioritize things differently (for example, guns or food) or the supply of said care goes way down. Another course is to say that they very well might bring down the price in that area, but, by definition, if it goes against the free market's price then those companies must offload the increased costs elsewhere or suffer loss. The example doesn't agree with the claim. Competition isn't some nebulous world-wide thing. No, it's regional, and has velocity, unlike what the neoclassical perfect competition model claims. You really think that people having less options in a given region will drive down prices? That's the very antithesis of increased competition. Lastly, here's an article which explodes the "public utilities" myth, and the myth that investment-intensive industries (like telecommunications) are too difficult for the free market to introduce competition into. Also, the myth of a 'natural monopoly' by demonstrating that they're alien to a free market and caused by the government in every historical circumstance (not saying they're metaphysically impossible, again, but there we have the theory of contestable markets to protect the free market besides historical precedent). mises.org/library/myth-natural-monopoly
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Oct 13, 2015 21:21:35 GMT -5
Summary of the Democrat debate, for those that missed it:
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 13, 2015 21:58:50 GMT -5
Literally taking a "State and Local Government" course in a community college.
These stories are super interesting, coming straight from a man in the system himself. Who knew Illinois politics ARE SO FULL OF DEALS AND TAKING BAD VOTES IN EXCHANGE FOR THINGS AND RUNNING THE POLITICAL MACHINE THANKS MADIGAN AND BLAGOJEVICH AND OHHHH BOYO WHAT'S GOING TO BE DONE ABOUT THE BUDGET. Literally everything I've encountered in this class has confirmed the principle of my beliefs about political life, and believe me I'm trying hard to disprove myself. I'd honestly like to be wrong. "Obviously you're not trying hard enough because you haven't changed your views to the correct positions yet-" YOU SURE ARE A TRUSTED COMPANION.
Well. I shouldn't act like these attempts at biting remarks are going to change anything. Or that jab at the immobility of our views. You guys should just open your minds, man.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 13, 2015 22:00:26 GMT -5
Goddamn it Jaedrik Summary of the Democrat debate, for those that missed it: And yet that summary is still better than what the Republican debates were.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 13, 2015 22:02:38 GMT -5
And yet that summary is still better than what the Republican debates were. I really can't tell the difference when what we have to choose between is going to war with a 36% top bracket tax rate and going to war sooner with a 34.6% top bracket tax rate. Neocons = democrats pretty much.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 13, 2015 22:05:35 GMT -5
Oh I totally agree most Democrats are garbage, but then that's why I support Bernie so.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 13, 2015 22:11:50 GMT -5
Oh I totally agree most Democrats are garbage, but then that's why I support Bernie so. At least we share extremism kinda.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 13, 2015 22:13:20 GMT -5
It's amazing how much less insane this democratic debate was than the previous two republican ones.
|
|
pachiderm
True Bro
Chewing some serious leaves
Posts: 647
|
Post by pachiderm on Oct 14, 2015 5:27:21 GMT -5
God damn it, Jaedrik, I went to Georgetown University and had many friends who studied economics and in the business school, and I swear to god if you can't start citing sources better than exclusively the Ludwig von Mises institute I will find someone I know who knows more about this than you do and I will bring them on here to prove you wrong.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Oct 14, 2015 9:19:55 GMT -5
G od da mn it, Jaedrik, I went to Georgetown University and had many friends who studied economics and in the business school, and I swear to god if you can't start citing sources better than exclusively the Ludwig von Mises institute I will find someone I know who knows more about this than you do and I will bring them on here to prove you wrong. I understand that citing one source over and over can get annoying, but, just because I cite the biggest institution which has a vested ideological interest in the advancement of liberty and the free market doesn't mean they're wrong. I wouldn't scoff if you cited Charles Dawkins or Thomas Piketty, The Heritage Foundation, or the New York Times 20 times in a row, really, I wouldn't. Judge not on the who or what, those are not meritorious avenues of inquiry. Judge on the merit of content. What you're suggesting is diversification for its own sake. No, like all things it ought to serve a purpose. If a random 4 year old from Portugal made an elegant proof of anything, I'd cite him. I don't care about credentials in that sense. Besides, why care about the institution they're writing under? I'd be more concerned about the individuals who wrote the darn things themselves. Now, where I could cite mises.org endlessly for their credentials, I'll just get the same information from different sources. Does that make the information more true? No. These are the people that wrote all the stuff I cited earlier. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzosites.wofford.edu/terrelltd/www.ryanmcmaken.com/p/about-this-blog.htmlmises.org/profile/anton-batey alright I couldn't find this guy elsewhere, you got me I guess. No surprise he's the least credentialed of all these men. My favorite one: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_WoodsAnd the man himself: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_von_MisesBy all means, bring one of them on. I'm not smart, but being beaten into the ground should help me improve on a few things.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 14, 2015 9:24:26 GMT -5
G od da mn it, Jaedrik, I went to Georgetown University and had many friends who studied economics and in the business school, and I swear to god if you can't start citing sources better than exclusively the Ludwig von Mises institute I will find someone I know who knows more about this than you do and I will bring them on here to prove you wrong. No need when I can look at these bad sources to refute them. For starters, all of jaedrik's sources are speculation and opinion based pieces instead of actual data. I'm going to start in weird order, but I would like to tackle the piece on pharmaceuticals and regulations on them. Said source ALREADY starts off disingenuous by claiming that R&D costs to the cost of a drug apply to a company that bought a company which already did the R&D. Even the FDA approval being part of the new company's cost could be seen as disingenuous because from the wording it appears that the drug was already submitted, and thus submission costs were already paid for by the previous company. It then goes on to suggest, without any proof, that removing the FDA's ability to take time to look into the drug would somehow lead to LESS deaths. It then talks about patents and makes the bold claim that outright removing patents on pharmaceuticals would be fine. Anyone that puts some thought on the subject knows that removing patents would lead to pressure on the company to drive up the price of drug drastically, leading to FURTHER DELAY of the patient being able reasonably aqquire the drug due to temporarily increased costs. The best solution is to have a reasonable time limit on the patent based on how long it takes for the company to start making a net profit while using reasonable prices. But my favorite part is when the source objects to idea of aspirin not being allowed to be advertised as a way to prevent heart attack. Because yeah, let's risk people's lives by encouraging them to constantly shove blood thinners into their system to prevent myocardial infarction rather than actual preventative measures like diet, exercise, and specific kinds of surgery. Oh what's that, you got a minor open wound, well time to call an ambulance to treat what is now a major bleed. There's a reason that at most doctors will suggest to their patients to regularly take a single Baby aspirin instead of a full dose. That's just one article though. I'll have more to say as I keep reading the other sources, though I have a feeling it's going to be more disingenuous stuff like that pharmaceutical article.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 14, 2015 9:47:22 GMT -5
Judge not on the who or what, those are not meritorious avenues of inquiry. Judge on the merit of content. That's exactly the point, the content of Mises is garbage.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 14, 2015 10:06:20 GMT -5
Now for the first source you provided, jaedrik: As I predicted, It's another disingenuous article. It COMPLETELY IGNORES one of the biggest ways that any decent healthcare system reduces costs: Mandated Coverage. The whole Foxtroting point of health insurance is to have the healthy cover the costs of the sick just like how any insurance's point is to have those not in a crisis collectively cover the costs of those in a crisis. It also talks about healthcare as though the rest of the world doesn't exist where BETTER systems have MORE government intervention. Here's a source that states, based on data, that US, in spite having higher costs for healthcare, ranks fairly low in terms of actual healthcare. Like any good source, it shows its paper trail leading directly to a study by the World Health Organization and analyzes the source fairly well. www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/14/paul-hipp/rocker-viral-video-mocks-us-37th-best-health-care-/So if government intervention is the issue, explain why all these countries with MORE government intervention have better healthcare.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 14, 2015 13:26:17 GMT -5
The problem is the type of government interference. When government officials are offered cushy private sector jobs or just funding, if they vote in their best interests instead of the people they represent, they rig the system against the majority of people. Most European governments are generally held more accountable, that's not to say they don't have corruption and the likes, just that their governments are more afraid of their people than ours. Just look at places like the UK where people rioted, when tuition increased etc... This is why the whole Anarcho-capitalist ideology is stupid, businesses HATE competition, they hate spending money they don't have to. Without government interference large corporations would buy out smaller businesses, shut them down through shady business operations and create cartels between each other.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Oct 14, 2015 17:24:41 GMT -5
I live in Canada. Our healthcare costs the average taxpayer about $11,000/year. And our system sucks balls, it is consistently ranked near the bottom of civilized countries, with the average emergency room wait times being anywhere from 4 to 8+ hours. As well, our technology is nowhere near the level of America's, we are always sending patients south for specialized treatments. I won't profess to know exactly what kind of private insurance you can get in the States for $11k/year, but I bet it's one hell of a lot better than the one we are forced into buying here.
Bonus: It is illegal to privately pay for any health care. Two months ago I took a puck in the face and had to get stitches to close the cut. There is nowhere I can go to pay someone to stitch it up legally, I would have to go and wait in the emergency room (probably at the bottom of the triage, with an 8+ hour wait time). YEAH GREAT SYSTEM
Don't let Michael Moore brainwash you. The free market is the best system, for all markets. Competition drives costs down and quality up. The American system is not a true free market - that is why it is not perfect. When the problem is government, the solution is not more government.
|
|
|
Post by GodMars on Oct 14, 2015 17:30:50 GMT -5
A puck to you face? Are there pictures?
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Oct 14, 2015 17:54:55 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2015 19:15:56 GMT -5
Jesus, Will. Think of the children.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 14, 2015 19:51:41 GMT -5
I live in Canada. Our healthcare costs the average taxpayer about $11,000/year. And our system sucks balls, it is consistently ranked near the bottom of civilized countries, with the average emergency room wait times being anywhere from 4 to 8+ hours. As well, our technology is nowhere near the level of America's, we are always sending patients south for specialized treatments. I won't profess to know exactly what kind of private insurance you can get in the States for $11k/year, but I bet it's one hell of a lot better than the one we are forced into buying here. Bonus: It is illegal to privately pay for any health care. I just checked your $11,000 statement and according to both Canadian Government and the World Health Organization, the cost of healthcare per capita is closer to $5000int or $6400CA. The Canadian source shows up as the first result upon searching healthcare costs per capita in Canada, so here's the WHO source: www.who.int/countries/can/en/I already know exactly what you are going to say so in advanced I looked up the percentage/number of Canadians that pay taxes and I got, for just income tax, about 26 million. The total cost of healthcare in Canada I got was 211 billion. So divide the cost of healthcare by the total number of tax payers and you get about $8115. The only way you could have gotten even close to $11,000 is if we assume that you are referring to Canadian Dollars and that the total cost given by the Canadian Government is not in Canadian Dollars. I also decided to check, and as I expected any care that the Canadian Government deems both essential and non-experimental that is aqquired in other countries, such as the U.S., will have all patient costs covered by The Provincial Government where the Canadian lives. So by sending south, I assume you mean simply the fact that, like literally all insurance groups, the Canadian Government will cooperate and/or negotiate with health related organizations in the US. I don't see how that makes Canadian healthcare look WORSE.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Oct 14, 2015 20:07:22 GMT -5
I apologize, my $11,000 number was for the average family, not person. My mistake, I remembered incorrectly. www.fraserinstitute.org/article/average-canadian-family-paying-more-11000-year-public-health-care-insuranceSo by sending south, I assume you mean simply the fact that, like literally all insurance groups, the Canadian Government will cooperate and/or negotiate with health related organizations in the US. I don't see how that makes Canadian healthcare look WORSE. You got me there. The point I was trying to make with that statement is that the American semi-private system results in greater innovation in it's technology, as there is a driving factor for improvement (profit).
|
|
|
Post by illram on Oct 15, 2015 12:26:05 GMT -5
US system is ranked lower than Canada's on almost every list, except cost. Monthly premiums in my area for a "top tier" (I forget what it's called, gold or platinum or whatever) family policy are around $1,600 per month. And we have out of pocket costs on top of that, plus policy limitations on what hospitals we can visit, plus all the other wonderful things companies do in this country such as deny payment for treatments after the fact based on policy technicalities, since that is how insurance companies roll. When the driving motivation is pure profit and you have a loose relationship between the patient (customer) and the actual cost (because insurance is the middleman paying, or not paying for it all) you get shenanigans like the guy who bought the HIV drug and jacked up its price to hundreds of dollars a pop. Innovation is great but what is not so great is the outrageous costs and out of whack market forces we have between the patient-->insurer-->provider that create all sorts of problems. Romneycare's solution of essentially just subsidizing and heavily regulating the insurance market, i.e. trying to make them as invisible as possible, is the sort of frankenstein monster solution we only have because it would be impractical to kill a giant multi-trillion dollar health insurance (not care) industry. (Incidentally why the public option was nixed, it was a poison pill, and a much needed one.)
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Oct 15, 2015 13:20:04 GMT -5
I apologize, my $11,000 number was for the average family, not person. My mistake, I remembered incorrectly. www.fraserinstitute.org/article/average-canadian-family-paying-more-11000-year-public-health-care-insuranceSo by sending south, I assume you mean simply the fact that, like literally all insurance groups, the Canadian Government will cooperate and/or negotiate with health related organizations in the US. I don't see how that makes Canadian healthcare look WORSE. You got me there. The point I was trying to make with that statement is that the American semi-private system results in greater innovation in it's technology, as there is a driving factor for improvement (profit). No worries, and I agree with the idea that private organizations in many cases can be responsible for great innovation. I even checked and found that, as I expected, Canadian Healthcare ranks worse than US healthcare specifically on the subject of waiting periods. I just think that: - private organizations that deal with health related products need to be heavily and, more importantly, properly regulated in many areas such as price and patents. - health coverage/insurance needs to be a a government based system where everyone is both allowed and mandated to be within the system to minimize reactionary healthcare costs as well as keep the insurance pool as large, consistent, and lowered risk as possible. - most people would rather have longer waiting periods for non-emergency care than risk having care not covered.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Oct 15, 2015 15:17:35 GMT -5
That's the common straw man I see people attacking. Almost no one is proposing complete government control, most people understand and appreciate what the private sector can do, it's just people also understand and worry what the private sector can do.
I mean this fantasy that the free-market is somehow able to regulate itself is absurd. Business hates competition, the very thing that makes the private sector healthy. We have historical examples of what lightly regulated/non regulated businesses do. They're horribly corrupt, and you can say all you want about "companies answer to consumers" but when most consumers either don't know or don't care, they won't stop.
On the other hand we know just how horrible places like the USSR and China are/were. Almost no one wants complete government control, that's a fallacious argument.
|
|