Obama Exposed

[hblask 1]

Where do you get this from? You seem to mix the old system of the soviet union in to modern social health care. If a country is poor, of course the health care system won't be good. The government can't afford to spend "enough" money, and the people who live in the country won't make enough to pay for health insurance/treatment. Poor countries does not get a discount on medical equipment, and it's expensive.

You are acting like it's just a coincidence that the poverty and the socialism just happen to occur in the same country. It's not, poverty is a consequence of socialism.

And can you explain why you think health care in America will become so terrible if it's turned into social health care? The hospitals will still have the same doctors, same budgets and same capacity. One of the biggest differences will be that private companies won't be left with an enormous profit. Either more money will be spent on health care, or you will pay less for the same care.

Why will it become terrible. Because when you break the link between supply and demand, you need a handful of bureacrats to get a million tiny decisions correct to the same degree that a million individual experts do on a daily basis.How often would Congres pass a new medical funding law? Once a year, at most? What about all the changes that occur in the meantime?One of the biggest issues is how to introduce technology. Right now, if a new medical technology comes along, the rich get it first and pay for the development costs. Then, as the price drops, it becomes available to more people, causing the price to drop more...etc (think digital cameras).Under a socialist system, how does it get introduced? Well, only when it's cheap enough. How does it get there? You have to hope another country goes through those first stages for you. But if the US goes socialist, who does that leave?Sorry if this is brief, but it's late. If you need more explanation, I can write more later.

If you believe your own government is the problem, you should perhaps try doing something about it. If you can't trust the government to control health care, you can't trust them to do anything imo.

Interesting theory.... this notion that it is somehow better for me to try to influence tens of thousands of voters in the hope that they will elect a politician who will actually vote the way he promises AND will have enough influence to affect things in washington... that this will work more effectively for me than asking my doctor for other treatment and/or payment options.If you have a theory for how this is more effective, I'd be interested in hearing it.

[Nimue1995 1]

I love the way these guys ignore the posts that they don't have an answer for. Regardless this is a dead issue here because neither side is going to convince the other. So end of discussion as far as I'm concerned. I have better things to think about then the healthcare situation that I'm in. Like POKER.

[hblask 1]

I have better things to think about then the healthcare situation that I'm in. Like POKER.

I think that's an excellent policy for people who support socialized medicine.EDIT: Oh, and BTW, I've tried to answer pretty much every non-trivial point, so if there is some specific issue you'd like me to address, let me know.

[Loismustdie 0]

I love the way these guys ignore the posts that they don't have an answer for. Regardless this is a dead issue here because neither side is going to convince the other. So end of discussion as far as I'm concerned. I have better things to think about then the healthcare situation that I'm in. Like POKER.

Any question he hasn't answered?

[checkymcfold 0]

Any question he hasn't answered?

making shit up, speaking in hyperbolic terms about socialized programs, and ignoring empirical data from canada, scandinavia, and the bad stuff about the current US health care system is not "answering questions." js.also, "i haven't had any bad experiences with the US system, so anyone who has bad experiences with it must have made a mistake" is not a valid argument.

[Loismustdie 0]

making shit up, speaking in hyperbolic terms about socialized programs, and ignoring empirical data from canada, scandinavia, and the bad stuff about the current US health care system is not "answering questions." js.also, "i haven't had any bad experiences with the US system, so anyone who has bad experiences with it must have made a mistake" is not a valid argument.

Lol, but that last statement is the only argument that the person from Norway has made. Nobody is saying the US system doesn't need change. It does, but we prefer a free market solution vs. any other because that has proven to work. We are not currently in a free market when it comes to healthcare. As far as making things up, I don't see where he has. Extrapolate, sure. Go into depth, sure. What he has done is what I don't see many do, and surely no democrats- take a number and break it down to what it consists of, who it represents, with sites and sources to back those numbers up, much, much better than anyone in this thread. Look, I don't like where this is going, I don't. I don't think it's good when Clinton has no answer except for "Yes" when the question is asked to her whether she will garnish wages to make people participate, and instead of the media giving a collective, all in one "WTF?" they fawn over it like it's sliced bread. This country was established on the idea that we were tired of this type of shit, being MADE to go a certain direction, freedom of choice is essential for mankind, especially for me, and anyone else who thinks like me.

[hblask 1]

making shit up, speaking in hyperbolic terms about socialized programs, and ignoring empirical data from canada, scandinavia, and the bad stuff about the current US health care system is not "answering questions." js.also, "i haven't had any bad experiences with the US system, so anyone who has bad experiences with it must have made a mistake" is not a valid argument.

I'm the only one who has any documented data in this entire thread, so if by "making shit up, speaking in hyperbolic terms" you mean "provided an extensively annotated litany of the problems with socialized medicine", then I guess I agree with you.I would not argue that the US system is perfect; in fact I have been pointing out a number of flaws with it. But one thing is clear: it is WAY WAY better than socialized medicine.

[checkymcfold 0]

I'm the only one who has any documented data in this entire thread, so if by "making shit up, speaking in hyperbolic terms" you mean "provided an extensively annotated litany of the problems with socialized medicine", then I guess I agree with you.I would not argue that the US system is perfect; in fact I have been pointing out a number of flaws with it. But one thing is clear: it is WAY WAY better than socialized medicine.

as everyone who has an actual experience with those countries has said, literally everything you have said about the canadian and scandinavian systems has been concocted out of thin air, including the amount of poverty in those countries since they're "zomg socialist regimes." this is why i stop arguing with you about these things--when you resort to mere namecalling and making up facts about counterexamples to your argument, it's clear that you're grasping at straws and not worth talking to anymore.just to be clear, some shit you've made up in this thread:99% of people in the US are insured.canadians wait weeks for treatment. (they simply don't)socialism->widespread poverty, absolutely. (canada, scandinavia, the new deal, europe in general)laissez-faire economics->prosperity, absolutely. (great depression, pre-labor law united states, human rights abuses all over the world, etc.)

[SlapStick 0]

it's clear that you're grasping at straws and not worth talking to anymore.

Here Here

[hblask 1]

99% of people in the US are insured.

Never made this claim, I said 99% could afford healthcare if they chose to. Possibly a bit high, but WAY closer than the large numbers the fearmongers generally claim.Also note: healthcare <> insurance. There is a HUGE difference.

canadians wait weeks for treatment. (they simply don't)

You better talk to the people who run healthcare in Canada, then, because their own reports have detailed lists of how long the waits are, and I've posted links to them in this thread. Are you claiming that the Canadian medical program is intentionally undermining their own program? That the reports that each government is putting out about their own programs have been falsified? Which part of those reports are you refuting, exactly?

socialism->widespread poverty, absolutely. (canada, scandinavia, the new deal, europe in general)laissez-faire economics->prosperity, absolutely. (great depression, pre-labor law united states, human rights abuses all over the world, etc.)

Canada and Scandanavian countries are "socialist lite"; in the areas where they are fully socialist, they are having more severe financial difficulties than in the areas where they are less socialized.I've posted in threads before the link between poverty and socialism; we have a world of data, and the historical record is absoutely clear: the more of the economy that is socialized, the lower the standard of living in that country. The number one indicator of a high standard of living is rule of law and free markets. This is, simply, a fact. I'm sorry that it doesn't fit with your worldview, but the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore. I posted a link to a graph comparing the two a while back, and one glance gives all the evidence anyone would ever need. As to your list of problems with "free markets":-- The great depression: most economists now realize that this was caused by poor economic policy at the federal level, first reducing the money supply, turning an economic slowdown into a recession; then increasing taxes and interference in economic productivity at a time when we could least afford it, making a normal economic downswing become a 10-year crisis.-- I'm not sure what you are referring to by "pre-labor law" in the US, but seeing as how people were coming from all over the world to "suffer" with our terrible labor conditions, you'd have to explain why people would leave the comfort of socialized systems to suffer these alleged terrible abuses.-- human rights? Seriously? You mean the human rights under Kim Jong-il, Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Mussolini, etc, etc? Those human rights? That's the kind you prefer to the US kind? I've never seen raw data, but it's simple to do a thought experiment. Rank each country by support for free markets and rule of law; rank each country by support for human rights. Compare the lists. There are groups that rank both, so it would even be easy to compare the two. I can think of only one serious outlier: Hong Kong -- (and if you compare it to it's parent country, even then it comes out shining). Everywhere else, the correlation would be pretty close.

[hblask 1]

Here Here

Really? Documented evidence = grasping at straws, in your mind? Interesting.I am the only one who has posted documentation so far; curiosly, I am the only one being accused of "making stuff up" and "using anecdotes".

[Ouch-8s 4]

I think I may go see a free doctor tomorrow morning. I'll decide tomorrow. I don't expect to have any trouble getting in.

[hblask 1]

The "economic freedom grade" is a score given to countries based on support for free markets and lack of interference in voluntary consensual transaction.

[hblask 1]

Report on economic freedom vs well-beingIf you don't want to read lots of technical details, just check the graphs on pages 33, 38, 40 and the tables with the statistical regression numbers or other data (pages 33, 34, 35, 40).I'm sorry, I'll stop making stuff up now. It threatens ideologies.

[checkymcfold 0]

LOL, henry. i, and i don't think any of my commie pals in this thread are either, am not arguing for communism, certainly not stalinism or mao-ism. i'm arguing that the government needs to get involved with stuff or real life human beings get marginalized or abused. "socialism lite," if you like. this is precisely what i mean re: hyperbolizing shit to suit your means. it's argumentatively disingenuous, and why i find it horribly frustrating arguing with you and give up.the odd thing is that you also feel the need to hyperbolize your own position and in so doing actually do a detriment to the argument you're trying to make.

[Ouch-8s 4]

I think I may go see a free doctor tomorrow morning. I'll decide tomorrow. I don't expect to have any trouble getting in.

yeah, i wasn't kidding, i've got this rash, and it fucking itches... checky, you may want to get yourself checked out.

[hblask 1]

LOL, henry. i, and i don't think any of my commie pals in this thread are either, am not arguing for communism, certainly not stalinism or mao-ism. i'm arguing that the government needs to get involved with stuff or real life human beings get marginalized or abused. "socialism lite," if you like. this is precisely what i mean re: hyperbolizing shit to suit your means. it's argumentatively disingenuous, and why i find it horribly frustrating arguing with you and give up.the odd thing is that you also feel the need to hyperbolize your own position and in so doing actually do a detriment to the argument you're trying to make.

It's not really hyperbole, the degree of harm is directly related to the degree of socialism. It's nearly linear. I've posted some of the data in the posts above (after the one you respond to here). Yes, it's socialism if you do it in small amounts, and yes, it still harms the economy. Yes, it harms it less than the full-scale socialism of mao, hitler, stalin, etc, but I don't think the goal of the federal government should be to be "to cause less harm than Stalin." It should be to cause no harm at all.

[checkymcfold 0]

It's not really hyperbole, the degree of harm is directly related to the degree of socialism. It's nearly linear. I've posted some of the data in the posts above (after the one you respond to here). Yes, it's socialism if you do it in small amounts, and yes, it still harms the economy. Yes, it harms it less than the full-scale socialism of mao, hitler, stalin, etc, but I don't think the goal of the federal government should be to be "to cause less harm than Stalin." It should be to cause no harm at all.

this means literally nothing. ergo, your next three words mean literally nothing.fwiw, the bottom of page 32 in the article you linked to makes a false claim--on which the rest of its argument turns--based on the distinction between mutual and individual accountability (hint: calling the former "murky" does not make it so), and the analogy between that distinction and individual and collective farms is laughable. i've taken five minutes reading it, and it's already incapable of receiving better than a B+ (thank god for his GPA that mr. easterly writes well), imo.edit: ok, i gave the article 3 more minutes, here's another gripe: it mistakes correlation for causation without providing any sort of argument for making that leap. hell, you learn to do that in stats 101. or should have, i guess. and another: you can't mathematically analyze a non-numerical variable without providing an argument for the translation of that variable into mathematical terms. like, for instance, "economic freedom" (the very use of that term makes me LOL so much!).

[hblask 1]

edit: ok, i gave the article 3 more minutes, here's another gripe: it mistakes correlation for causation without providing any sort of argument for making that leap. hell, you learn to do that in stats 101. or should have, i guess. and another: you can't mathematically analyze a non-numerical variable without providing an argument for the translation of that variable into mathematical terms. like, for instance, "economic freedom" (the very use of that term makes me LOL so much!).

Seriously, how many historical data points do you need before you admit that the case for socialism has been soundly defeated? Nitpick all you want, the data is there and overwhelming. Need more evidence? How about the chart on page 6 of this report?Do you have any evidence that socialism lite leads to better results? (Didn't think so).By the way, you can also go through the rankings country by country, and compare them to a variety of health statistics from the CIA World Factbook, and put them on this same graph. Guess who has the best health?

[hblask 1]

this means literally nothing. ergo, your next three words mean literally nothing.

How can you say "degree of socialism" has no meaning? There are a number of groups that rank government intervention in economies worldwide, and in fact, I've posted the links to them above. This is a measurement that has been going on for quite a while now, and each year the results are the same.So I'll ask again, how many years worth of data do you need? Because we've got generations worth now.

[gobears 0]

Big government is what ruined healthcare in this country. Prior to WWII, doctors made housecalls, and anyone who wanted medical treatment could afford it. Insurance was cheap and flexible. Then the government implemented wage and price controls. So if you can't give an employee a raise, what can you do to attract good workers? You increase benefits. The government treated employer spending on healthcare as a tax break to the employer, whereas privately purchased insurance was not deductible. So basically, the government forced employers to give workers their raises in company-sponsored health insurance. So what? Well, now, instead of hundreds of millions of people making individual choices, you have a few HR people making choices for large groups. This led to insurance companies cutting down the number of choices they offered. Now, with fewer targets, insurance companies became targets for regulation. Shortly after that, Medicare and Medicaid were introduced, limiting not only the maximum doctors could charge, but also the minimum that they could charge. To recap: price controls moves coverage from individuals to groups; groups get regulated; shortly thereafter price controls are introduced, limiting supply.So yeah, I think we should go back to the only medical system that ever worked: free markets. Most of us have never experienced them, but there were remnants of them in my small town growing up, and my parents raised 13 of us under free market care, despite us living well below the poverty line.

Hyperbole - anyone could afford it? Please. The reason, Blue Cross started up in the 20's and 30's was to pool a bunch of employee's premiums together in order to guarantee health coverage for all. Back then, the rich could get coverage but the poor could just go off and die if they were sick.Free markets means that the rich can afford proper health care while the poor have no recourse. Sure, when they get real sick, they can just head off to their local emergency room but that doesn't help too much if they are in the last stages of cancer where early detection would have given them a much better chance for a cure.It seems that you like to attack straw men like the "bureaucrats", "big government" which we really don't bring up and ignore the questions you don't like or don't have answers for - just answer these questions then.1. In the free market system, where do the poor get proper medical coverage? Who pays and how? How would it work Today - life is different now than before WW2 so should we just switch like that to a total free market system? I think that many people just like hearing the word 'free market" and think of it as some utopian panacea - it's just a word with nothing behind it unless I see some details as to how a free market system would work and how the poor and not so well off get covered. 2. You and Lois like to say "move" as the answer to people's problems. There are over 30 million people below the poverty line and many more close to it, where should all these people move to get proper care?

[Balloon guy 158]

2. You and Lois like to say "move" as the answer to people's problems. There are over 30 million people below the poverty line and many more close to it, where should all these people move to get proper care?

Canada?

[Nimue1995 1]

Our governor used to load up busloads of senior citizens here and truck on up to Canada to get their prescriptions. But seriously do we need a wall on our northern border too? You guys are just dumb if you think that going back to free market economy is the right answer. Let's see, sweat shops, children working instead of going to school to help support themselves and the family, poor houses and debtor's prisons (yes there were such things in the beginning of the U.S.), as was pointed out people dying of cancer because they can't afford early detection and treatment (but then let those poor people die off and I guess that would solve your problems too - they're just too inconvenient staying alive like they do) discrimination against minorities (since you're white guys I'm guessing that wouldn't bother you all that much either), companies polluting the environment and then packing up and leaving the mess for others to deal with, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Oh and your idea to move was what eventually caused us to go from sea to shining sea. Now that there's no place else for the disenfranchised to move to, it becomes a problem doesn't it? You all are yearning for the good old days but I really think that if you were magically transported back to them, you'd think differently and might even begin to appreciate the battles that have been fought on your behalf so that you can have the lifestyle you have today. Free market economy isn't anything you really want to experience.

[Kenny Banya 0]

Canada?

They said "proper" care

[checkymcfold 0]

How can you say "degree of socialism" has no meaning? There are a number of groups that rank government intervention in economies worldwide, and in fact, I've posted the links to them above. This is a measurement that has been going on for quite a while now, and each year the results are the same.So I'll ask again, how many years worth of data do you need? Because we've got generations worth now.

i mean it's not quantifiable and thus can't be analyzed in a fake-math graph like your article tries to suggest. you have to know when you're being duped.gobears asked the right questions.