Michael Moore and socialized medicine

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You are wrong. Its half that- 17%.


[/ QUOTE ]

Really? Even now, with the war on terror and everything? That surprises me. Thanks for the feedback.
My argument stays the same though. Public welfare is not only made by higher tax, it can also be made by using tax money different.

Since I just got told that the average guy in the US pays around 44-50% in taxes total, it becomes interessting, since many west-european countries with far more public welfare systems also are around that number.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually war in Iraq is not included in the normal budget, so these numbers do not account for that.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You have two societies. The ONLY thing you know about them is in society A, people make $30,000. Every single one of them. In society B, 90% of the people make $29,500. 10% make $300,000. Even assume those who make $300,000 do it randomly through some lottery that decides they get to make more. They each have the same number of people working hard, being lazy, naturally gifted or ungifted. You can choose a society to live in. Which one would you rather live in?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining. I'd choose B because the sum of all the money is greater than in A. It would be a wealthier society overall. So taking a shot in that society (9-1 og getting $300000) would be +EV, since difference in A and the 90% of B is only $500. Hopefully those rich ones would share a little, if not by giving away, then creating more jobs since they have an economic edge.

But the question would be better if the sum of the money is the same. You have to compare apples to apples. After all, socialist reforms doesn't make money just go away. If you're rich and pay more tax, that tax goes somewhere.

So I'd rather look at two societies where the OVERALL money each have is the same.

For example:

A: All gets $100000
B 50% gets $50000, the other 50% get $150000.

In this case my answer would be A.

[/ QUOTE ]


So the overall amount of money is the key?

If 99.9% of people had $1, and .1% had $1,000,000,000,000 - this would be better?

I would disagree here.

But at least you admitted you don't really have a problem with inequality.


[/ QUOTE ]

No obviouly, as pretty much 100% of people that are "socialists", he has no problem with inequality per se.

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You have two societies. The ONLY thing you know about them is in society A, people make $30,000. Every single one of them. In society B, 90% of the people make $29,500. 10% make $300,000. Even assume those who make $300,000 do it randomly through some lottery that decides they get to make more. They each have the same number of people working hard, being lazy, naturally gifted or ungifted. You can choose a society to live in. Which one would you rather live in?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining. I'd choose B because the sum of all the money is greater than in A. It would be a wealthier society overall. So taking a shot in that society (9-1 og getting $300000) would be +EV, since difference in A and the 90% of B is only $500. Hopefully those rich ones would share a little, if not by giving away, then creating more jobs since they have an economic edge.

But the question would be better if the sum of the money is the same. You have to compare apples to apples. After all, socialist reforms doesn't make money just go away. If you're rich and pay more tax, that tax goes somewhere.

So I'd rather look at two societies where the OVERALL money each have is the same.

For example:

A: All gets $100000
B 50% gets $50000, the other 50% get $150000.

In this case my answer would be A.

[/ QUOTE ]


So the overall amount of money is the key?

If 99.9% of people had $1, and .1% had $1,000,000,000,000 - this would be better?

I would disagree here.

But at least you admitted you don't really have a problem with inequality.


[/ QUOTE ]

No obviouly, as pretty much 100% of people that are "socialists", he has no problem with inequality per se.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not met moorobot/propertarian.

[tehox]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

You have two societies. The ONLY thing you know about them is in society A, people make $30,000. Every single one of them. In society B, 90% of the people make $29,500. 10% make $300,000. Even assume those who make $300,000 do it randomly through some lottery that decides they get to make more. They each have the same number of people working hard, being lazy, naturally gifted or ungifted. You can choose a society to live in. Which one would you rather live in?


[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for explaining. I'd choose B because the sum of all the money is greater than in A. It would be a wealthier society overall. So taking a shot in that society (9-1 og getting $300000) would be +EV, since difference in A and the 90% of B is only $500. Hopefully those rich ones would share a little, if not by giving away, then creating more jobs since they have an economic edge.

But the question would be better if the sum of the money is the same. You have to compare apples to apples. After all, socialist reforms doesn't make money just go away. If you're rich and pay more tax, that tax goes somewhere.

So I'd rather look at two societies where the OVERALL money each have is the same.

For example:

A: All gets $100000
B 50% gets $50000, the other 50% get $150000.

In this case my answer would be A.

[/ QUOTE ]


So the overall amount of money is the key?

If 99.9% of people had $1, and .1% had $1,000,000,000,000 - this would be better?

I would disagree here.

But at least you admitted you don't really have a problem with inequality.


[/ QUOTE ]

No obviouly, as pretty much 100% of people that are "socialists", he has no problem with inequality per se.

[/ QUOTE ]

You have not met moorobot/propertarian.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok 99.9% [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]


Wouldn't you say Ph D biologists probably have the same intellectual abilities as medical doctors or thereabouts? Yet strangely, biologists on average get 1/3 the salary. That should clue everyone in that something fishy is going on... Why aren't more biologists simply becoming doctors? The reasons lie in the barriers to entry in the U.S., especially from the AMA union, which has enormous influence. They love regulations that artificially create shortages in health care, therefore raising their own salaries. Want to open a new medical school, or even allow more students to go through one that is already open? Have to go ask them for permission. Want to practice medicine in the US, but you aren't a citizen? Too bad. Want to take a test and get certified, but can't speak English? Too bad.

As in so many different industries, the best advice for health care is to lift the burden of regulations and allow capitalism to do its thing. We trust greedy grocery store owners to provide us with food, and that's even more important to survival. Hopefully people realize our trust in them isn't because they're just a nicer group of guys than doctors are.

(Note: everything I wrote above is exactly ripped off an mp3 that Nielsio posted: Walter Block - Health Economics)

[/ QUOTE ]


Im not at all surprised that Nielsio would link to something containing stupidity like the above, but am surprised someone would actually quote it.

First, is the average PhD biologist if equivalent intellectually abiltiy as the average medical doctor? I highly doubt they are. A PhD botanist equivalent to even a GP? A PhD human bioligist might be on the level of an MD but then he isnt making 1/3 of the average doctor. and even if the propostion were true, does that mean its because of the "AMA union" or artificial barriers to entry? Sean Penn couldnt hope to learn my job in 30 years, but hes still paid 60x for one move what I make in a year.

Food is more important to survival than a doctor...absolutely. But is a grocer? Not even close. If every grocer went out of business nobody is going to starve to death. A grocer is a convenience, and a very poorly compensated one for that matter. Margins in the grocery business are razor thin. and what do we "trust" a grocer for? to stock the kind of cereal we like? A grocer supplies what sells...ie what we tell him we want him to stock. We dont trust him to do anything but do the bare minimum to stay in business...keep the food from spoiling.

What a crock...and not even spreadable.

[revots33]

After reading all these responses I think it's pretty obvious that most on the anti-socialized health care side have zero interest in even examining the health care systems of any other countries, to see if they contain anything of merit that could be incorporated into the US system. Everyone is so in love with their personal ideology of free markets ftw that there is a refusal to admit another approach could possibly have any merit. I might add that this is typical of the American approach to debate. Our way is the only way.

Right now, there are many other wealthy countries providing socialized health care. Many of them spend far less per capita than the US on healthcare, and the health of their citizens is better than the US by every statistical measure. All the nightmare scenarios mentioned that would cause the US system to collapse if socialized, have somehow managed to be overcome in these other countries.

But I think it comes down to philosophy, not the actual health care citizens are receiving. Americans do not like taking money they earn, and giving it to someone else unless they choose to do so. Period. It is simply not our way. Other countries see the taxation as a worthwhile cost if it provides everyone (including themselves, should they ever need it) a safety net and an equal level of health care.

It also has to do with the culture of consumption and materialism in the US. In a country like Sweden even the richest citizens tend to live in relatively modest homes. Flaunting one's personal wealth is considered rude. Sharing your income with your fellow citizens is accepted, because accumulating as much money as possible is not the goal.

A while back I posted this quote from a Danish citizen:

"The big difference between the United States and Denmark is you put an emphasis on individualism vs. the collective," she says. "We have no working poor. There are no kids living in cars with no child care. We pay high taxes for it. But in the end, how much money do you need?"

I think this statement sums up the huge difference in philosophies. To an American, "how much money do you need?" is an irrelevant question. I am not saying this is wrong or right. It's just how it is. But I think all the talk of the efficiencies of the free market, etc. just obscures the real issue, which is that Americans prize self-reliance over collectivism and just DO NOT LIKE being taxed.

[HeavilyArmed]

[ QUOTE ]
To an American, "how much money do you need?" is an irrelevant question. I am not saying this is wrong or right.

[/ QUOTE ]

There exists a generation of Americans unable to make such value judgements and on much greater matters than this. It's a large portion of America's near certain failure in the future.

[Copernicus]

"Many of them spend far less per capita than the US on healthcare, and the health of their citizens is better than the US by every statistical measure."

What statistical measures? and dont include life expectancy from birth or pre-natal/infant death statistics. Ive already pointed out why those are skewed to the detriment of the US and it has nothing to do with the health care system.

As far as cost goes,have you ever seen cost data that excludes voluntary surgery, eg cosmetic surgery, liposuction, bariatric surgery and end of life care?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
After reading all these responses I think it's pretty obvious that most on the anti-socialized health care side have zero interest in even examining the health care systems of any other countries, to see if they contain anything of merit that could be incorporated into the US system. Everyone is so in love with their personal ideology of free markets ftw that there is a refusal to admit another approach could possibly have any merit. I might add that this is typical of the American approach to debate. Our way is the only way.


[/ QUOTE ]

Well the first step would be to implement a free market in medicine then we can talk about subsidizing poor people.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
What statistical measures?

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, the UN ranked US health care 37th overall. Link