FA+
Shop
743
Views
Views
19
Favorites
Favorites
Category
All / All
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 446 x 576
File Size 99.6 kB
Report this content
More from elkit
I'm tired of the petty "eye for and eye" partisan bickering. I'm tired of the likes of Cindy Sheehan, Rush Limbaugh, George Soros, Move On, Liberal, Conservative, Red, Blue, Black, White, Democrat, Republican, Left, Right, Race-baiting, Hippie, Theocratic polarizing morons ON BOTH SIDES who are destorying everything that this country stands for just so that they can say "I win!"
STOP TEARING MY COUNTRY APART!!!
STOP TEARING MY COUNTRY APART!!!
Category All / All
Species Vulpine (Other)
Size 446 x 576px
File Size 99.6 kB
Socialized medicine is bureaucratic socialism at it's worst. The confusion with communism is because communism has never been realized on a scale larger than a few dozen people. All attempts to create 'communism' on larger scales have degenerated into bureaucratic socialism.
In other words, the accusation of communism is a reference to the fact that socialized healthcare is an idea that works quite well in communities but will be hopelessly bureaucratic on a national scale.
In other words, the accusation of communism is a reference to the fact that socialized healthcare is an idea that works quite well in communities but will be hopelessly bureaucratic on a national scale.
Absolutely. Just look at the UK with its NHS -- it's clearly anti-capitalist, which is why international capital and finance wouldn't go anywhere near London.... oh wait...
The fact of the matter is, America's economy is losing out because of its healthcare system. Leaving aside the effect of large numbers of uninsured people (which would be considered scandalous in any other Western industrialised economy), millions depend on their employers for healthcare. This reduces labour mobility, tying people into jobs where they're less productive than they could be because of the uncertainty about getting health cover.
If people know they are able to get cover when they move jobs (and don't have to worry about how any condition they currently have would affect premiums, ability to obtain cover, etc, (whether by some compulsory insurance scheme with appropriate tax breaks, or whatever), they're likely to be much more prepared to move jobs, location, etc, to where they're going to provide the best economic benefit. The free-for-all at present may be good for the health-care sector, but it's bad for every other sector of the economy; it gums up the labour market and makes it inefficient. Unfortunately the shrill and partisan nature of the debate at present means that what should be the no-brainer issue right and left could agree on (at least in the country) has become a vacuous ideological pantomime. Unfortunately the reflex government = bad attitude you display blinds you to the fact that government actually has a chance to make the American economy *more efficient and productive* because industry is unable to do it by itself, however much it actually wants it.
The benefits to labour mobility and the economic activity rate of America (and all the associated reductions of social costs associated with raising the latter) far outweigh anything the phantom Bad Things you conjure up could cost.
The fact of the matter is, America's economy is losing out because of its healthcare system. Leaving aside the effect of large numbers of uninsured people (which would be considered scandalous in any other Western industrialised economy), millions depend on their employers for healthcare. This reduces labour mobility, tying people into jobs where they're less productive than they could be because of the uncertainty about getting health cover.
If people know they are able to get cover when they move jobs (and don't have to worry about how any condition they currently have would affect premiums, ability to obtain cover, etc, (whether by some compulsory insurance scheme with appropriate tax breaks, or whatever), they're likely to be much more prepared to move jobs, location, etc, to where they're going to provide the best economic benefit. The free-for-all at present may be good for the health-care sector, but it's bad for every other sector of the economy; it gums up the labour market and makes it inefficient. Unfortunately the shrill and partisan nature of the debate at present means that what should be the no-brainer issue right and left could agree on (at least in the country) has become a vacuous ideological pantomime. Unfortunately the reflex government = bad attitude you display blinds you to the fact that government actually has a chance to make the American economy *more efficient and productive* because industry is unable to do it by itself, however much it actually wants it.
The benefits to labour mobility and the economic activity rate of America (and all the associated reductions of social costs associated with raising the latter) far outweigh anything the phantom Bad Things you conjure up could cost.
Unfortunately for your argument I didn't display a reflexive government = bad response. (I merely explained the misconception regarding socialized medicine and communism.) I will continue to not use one. Not only is it respectful to you that I not scream about OMGHORROR - it's more fun to react on your terms rather than mine.
So I'm not going to conjure up any bad things, but I will point out something you just said.
The NHS is anti-capitalist, but international capital and finance loves it. This was your first statement. I will explain why.
It is because the NHS is mercantilist. It favors the merchant class. It is not traditionally mercantilist in the sense of favoring only national merchants, but it nevertheless protects the merchant class primarily.
This is why international capital and finance likes London in spite of the NHS. International companies do not have to worry about the health of their employees in Britain. Hence, they like siting themselves in Britain. In Britain they can take advantage of both a friendly labor market (that doesn't exist in most countries with NHS-style healthcare provision) while simultaneously having the special protections offered by the NHS. This makes Britain an attractive place for international business to move to.
You see, nationalized healthcare provision is a mercantilist policy everywhere, but when coupled with restrictive trade and labor policies such as those that exist in Scandinavia and France, it protects only national merchants. In Britain it protects all merchants.
Socialized healthcare is indeed anti-capitalist, but as I explained earlier, communist is the wrong word to use. Not everything anti-capitalist is necessarily communist. Nor is everything socialist necessarily communist. Some things are simply illiberal in the classic sense - favoring the already 'inside' against those who are not integrated into the system already.
So I'm not going to conjure up any bad things, but I will point out something you just said.
The NHS is anti-capitalist, but international capital and finance loves it. This was your first statement. I will explain why.
It is because the NHS is mercantilist. It favors the merchant class. It is not traditionally mercantilist in the sense of favoring only national merchants, but it nevertheless protects the merchant class primarily.
This is why international capital and finance likes London in spite of the NHS. International companies do not have to worry about the health of their employees in Britain. Hence, they like siting themselves in Britain. In Britain they can take advantage of both a friendly labor market (that doesn't exist in most countries with NHS-style healthcare provision) while simultaneously having the special protections offered by the NHS. This makes Britain an attractive place for international business to move to.
You see, nationalized healthcare provision is a mercantilist policy everywhere, but when coupled with restrictive trade and labor policies such as those that exist in Scandinavia and France, it protects only national merchants. In Britain it protects all merchants.
Socialized healthcare is indeed anti-capitalist, but as I explained earlier, communist is the wrong word to use. Not everything anti-capitalist is necessarily communist. Nor is everything socialist necessarily communist. Some things are simply illiberal in the classic sense - favoring the already 'inside' against those who are not integrated into the system already.
That is because it's more about the almighty dollar than anything else. This is just a term Amercians keep using to keep them from ever benefiting from a universal health care.
I remember visiting a friend and we were involved in a really bad accident. He didn't have insurance, the woman who caused the accident didn't have insurance and there I was needing medical attention. Boy that was scary in itself! I kept asking how much it would cost (was over $1000 for a bruised kneecap, this at a non for profit hospital) I even had a few jabs at how in Canada I would forever be waiting for medical attention.
I just am appalled when movies like Sicko come out and people I've known for years and years start comparing it to communism. At the end of the day, I'd like to know that even if I'm in an accident, I won't have to think how much and if I will be treated, let alone being able to afford it.
I know that no system is perfect, but getting sick, needing medicine and or and operation is nothing short of scary there. Even with coverage, it doesn't mean you are fully covered or can just go anywheres and get treated. You think the self label of "best country in the world" that the issue of health care for all would have been fixed by now :S
I remember visiting a friend and we were involved in a really bad accident. He didn't have insurance, the woman who caused the accident didn't have insurance and there I was needing medical attention. Boy that was scary in itself! I kept asking how much it would cost (was over $1000 for a bruised kneecap, this at a non for profit hospital) I even had a few jabs at how in Canada I would forever be waiting for medical attention.
I just am appalled when movies like Sicko come out and people I've known for years and years start comparing it to communism. At the end of the day, I'd like to know that even if I'm in an accident, I won't have to think how much and if I will be treated, let alone being able to afford it.
I know that no system is perfect, but getting sick, needing medicine and or and operation is nothing short of scary there. Even with coverage, it doesn't mean you are fully covered or can just go anywheres and get treated. You think the self label of "best country in the world" that the issue of health care for all would have been fixed by now :S
The "almighty dollar" is never listened to. The "almighty corporation" is listened to all too often. The "almighty dollar" would counsel against universal healthcare full stop, but the "almighty corporation" is spending massive amounts of money to trick people into voting against their interest by supporting universal healthcare.
If you want to know that 'at the end of the day' you won't have to think about how much it will cost, you need solid insurance. A more practical approach, the one that the "almighty dollar" would recommend, would be for you to save up money and be prepared to shell out for medical care. This is the approach that would cost less. Most people are drastically over-insured, a situation that the insurance companies are happy about but that is making our entire healthcare system painfully bureaucratic and reducing market pressures on it.
The issue of universal healthcare comes down to neither more nor less than tax incidence. There are two groups which strongly support (and reasonably support) universal healthcare on the basis of direct benefit. These are older citizens and major corporations.
Big corporations want universal healthcare because the taxes won't fall on them, while they'll be able to shuck healthcare costs onto the system. If universal healthcare becomes law, corporations will be able to shift health expenditures off of employee-provided healthcare plans and onto people like you and I. This will additionally strengthen further the advantage of the large corporation over the small, since the larger and more established corporations are also the ones most likely to have long "legacy" costs involved in their healthcare systems.
Older citizens want universal healthcare because their healthcare expenses are dramatically higher than any potential increase in taxes are. Additionally, older citizens are more likely to have the kind of experience and networks which enable them to shift tax incidence away further.
Universal healthcare is a subsidy of the experienced and the 'inside' at the expense of the inexperienced and the 'outside'. It is a cost borne by the young and poor to be paid to those who have experience, connections, and stable incomes. It is a classic antiliberalist policy.
If you want to know that 'at the end of the day' you won't have to think about how much it will cost, you need solid insurance. A more practical approach, the one that the "almighty dollar" would recommend, would be for you to save up money and be prepared to shell out for medical care. This is the approach that would cost less. Most people are drastically over-insured, a situation that the insurance companies are happy about but that is making our entire healthcare system painfully bureaucratic and reducing market pressures on it.
The issue of universal healthcare comes down to neither more nor less than tax incidence. There are two groups which strongly support (and reasonably support) universal healthcare on the basis of direct benefit. These are older citizens and major corporations.
Big corporations want universal healthcare because the taxes won't fall on them, while they'll be able to shuck healthcare costs onto the system. If universal healthcare becomes law, corporations will be able to shift health expenditures off of employee-provided healthcare plans and onto people like you and I. This will additionally strengthen further the advantage of the large corporation over the small, since the larger and more established corporations are also the ones most likely to have long "legacy" costs involved in their healthcare systems.
Older citizens want universal healthcare because their healthcare expenses are dramatically higher than any potential increase in taxes are. Additionally, older citizens are more likely to have the kind of experience and networks which enable them to shift tax incidence away further.
Universal healthcare is a subsidy of the experienced and the 'inside' at the expense of the inexperienced and the 'outside'. It is a cost borne by the young and poor to be paid to those who have experience, connections, and stable incomes. It is a classic antiliberalist policy.
That's a whole lotta nothing, you sound like so many politicians that I've heard over the many many years. Universal health care is better by any and all means than what the U.S. has, instead of dumping people out on the streets or taking people for every cent they are worth.
Yes a solid insurance, which so many Americans go without year after year...after year.
I've experienced both sides of this argument on the healthcare issue, and anything is better than what America has for the health and taking care of it's people.
Yes a solid insurance, which so many Americans go without year after year...after year.
I've experienced both sides of this argument on the healthcare issue, and anything is better than what America has for the health and taking care of it's people.
There is nothing more to universal health care than dumping people on the street and taking them for everything they're worth. It's a mercantilist policy which will only benefit the powerful at the expense of the common man.
I'm a classic liberal - I work for the people. They don't allow my kind in politics.
I'm a classic liberal - I work for the people. They don't allow my kind in politics.
<coughs> But if the amount wasted in Iraq past, present and future was actually used for some good south of the border instead instead...maybe "illegals" wouldn't be crossing so much.
It would work in a country of 300+ million, if a county can allow what the current administration has done, then certainly the opposite extreme could be a possibility too, the only problem is the American psyche which usually is "how can we make a dollar off this in the process?"
It would work in a country of 300+ million, if a county can allow what the current administration has done, then certainly the opposite extreme could be a possibility too, the only problem is the American psyche which usually is "how can we make a dollar off this in the process?"
It's not a card it's a fact, and the money has been wasted so might as well point out the fact dumping it into Mexico infrastructure wouldn't have been any less productive...
No I said that socialized medicine is just another side of the extreme spectrum for the United States, not that socialized medicine in general is extreme.
I've heard enough retirees in their 60's complain how their back surgery cost their insurance company $40,000, and how after they got out of the hospital found their insurance company looking for drop them for any reason possible, even only offering to pay for lower priced prescription drugs that do almost the same job. I could spend all day citing examples to debate my side of things, but I've learned some people do not learn any lessons until they know someone close to them who has had the misfortune of that current system. The term "qualified people" would be applied to those profitable enough to patch up and send on their way...
If your profile information is correct and you're only 18, wait until you're 30-40 years old and a couple of decades of experience behind the belt and you're realize such issues are not so cut and dry/black and white.
...and I always use quotations when dealing with "illegals" as it's kind of ironic that if you go back far enough almost every person is an immigrant, it's a country founded by illegal immigrants. I'm sure due process was served back in the day when the country was founded.
You can put up fences, round up people and deport them, do unspeakable things to people that try to get in, but in the end, if you don't help fight the causes for why those people are willing to be illegal in the first place, then you will ALWAYS have people willing to risk it.
Papers please! Better run a security check on the neighbors they don't look quite legal enough for my likings, mccarthy trials anyone?
No I said that socialized medicine is just another side of the extreme spectrum for the United States, not that socialized medicine in general is extreme.
I've heard enough retirees in their 60's complain how their back surgery cost their insurance company $40,000, and how after they got out of the hospital found their insurance company looking for drop them for any reason possible, even only offering to pay for lower priced prescription drugs that do almost the same job. I could spend all day citing examples to debate my side of things, but I've learned some people do not learn any lessons until they know someone close to them who has had the misfortune of that current system. The term "qualified people" would be applied to those profitable enough to patch up and send on their way...
If your profile information is correct and you're only 18, wait until you're 30-40 years old and a couple of decades of experience behind the belt and you're realize such issues are not so cut and dry/black and white.
...and I always use quotations when dealing with "illegals" as it's kind of ironic that if you go back far enough almost every person is an immigrant, it's a country founded by illegal immigrants. I'm sure due process was served back in the day when the country was founded.
You can put up fences, round up people and deport them, do unspeakable things to people that try to get in, but in the end, if you don't help fight the causes for why those people are willing to be illegal in the first place, then you will ALWAYS have people willing to risk it.
Papers please! Better run a security check on the neighbors they don't look quite legal enough for my likings, mccarthy trials anyone?
Sadly, the majority of the "live and let live" and "agree to disagree" crowd is rarely shown. Instead, pundits and extremists from both the left and the right have the majority of media coverage, spending the entire time finger-pointing and spewing their vitrolic venom. And the lamest part of this is that both the extreme neo-conservative and neo-liberal factions have the gall to call themselves moderate while operating their "win-at-all-cost" scorched-earth political machinations.
What really sucks is that next year is an election year, which means we'll be once again overwhelmed with nasty political attack ads on top of the usual pile of political waste. In my honest opinion, it's not worth having a television when that childish, scare-mongering, name-calling crap is on.
I wish they had MST3K versions during political speeches.
What really sucks is that next year is an election year, which means we'll be once again overwhelmed with nasty political attack ads on top of the usual pile of political waste. In my honest opinion, it's not worth having a television when that childish, scare-mongering, name-calling crap is on.
I wish they had MST3K versions during political speeches.
I find it hard to believe that you could equate Cindy Sheehan with Rush Limbaugh; but then, I'm no longer American. Perhaps my perspective has become a bit... foreign.
And as any student of your history could tell you, the United States has never been united. You might recall that the American Revolution was followed almost immediately by Shay's Rebellion, and that such conflicts, large or small, noisy or quiet, have bristled throughout the centuries ever since. Why should these days be any different?
Mark
Mark
And as any student of your history could tell you, the United States has never been united. You might recall that the American Revolution was followed almost immediately by Shay's Rebellion, and that such conflicts, large or small, noisy or quiet, have bristled throughout the centuries ever since. Why should these days be any different?
Mark
Mark
omg I so know what you mean. It's the god damn extremists that are fucking over the country. we can't defend ourselves from terrorists and the flood of illegals, nor can we keep our liberties, be sexually different or want to go about a war in an intelligent fashion. Seems every time some one comes up with logical solutions, ether the left or the right gets in the fucking way. I'm always getting attacked from both the left wing and the right wing. They can't stand any one who's down to earth and just wants to think things out logically. I'm so so sick of the situation. I'm center of the road and glad to be it. I'm glad to know I'm not alone in my frustration. I love my country. Things have GOT to change. We can't keep having to pick between the lesser of 2 evils any more >.< .
Comments