Universal Healthcare? Can it work? I'm doubtful...

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Black people should try becoming members of the Klan to try and reduce the numbers of lynchings. Rather than saying violence is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude we know you think it's wrong. We disagree. There's not a lot more to discuss. Trying to turn every thread about government into a moral discussion is being like those christians who go around porn sites posting about how god hates you looking at naked women.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not like that at all, since nobody here is "going around" to this site. We're already here! This isn't a "statist" site that is being invaded. Plus, repeitition works, judging from the number of posters here who have been increasingly supportive of voluntaryist views.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a thread on whether Universal Healthcare can work, it's not far off.

Some of the ACists, e.g. Boro, have made interesting and worthwhile contributions here. I don't mind people trailing your moral philosophy. But do we need every one of these threads to degenerate into 5 people going

slavery imo
not imo
nyanyanya
blahblahblah
imagine a hot dog vendor

?

[AlexM]

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

Black people should try becoming members of the Klan to try and reduce the numbers of lynchings. Rather than saying violence is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude we know you think it's wrong. We disagree. There's not a lot more to discuss. Trying to turn every thread about government into a moral discussion is being like those christians who go around porn sites posting about how god hates you looking at naked women.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not like that at all, since nobody here is "going around" to this site. We're already here! This isn't a "statist" site that is being invaded. Plus, repeitition works, judging from the number of posters here who have been increasingly supportive of voluntaryist views.

[/ QUOTE ]

In a thread on whether Universal Healthcare can work, it's not far off.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it is. If the thread were "What do you think is the best form of Universal Healthcare?" or "What do you like best about Universal Healthcare?" then I might agree with you, but in a thread that's questioning whether we should have Universal Healthcare or not, people expressing their opinions on why we shouldn't is an important part of the conversation.

[MiloMinderbinder]

[ QUOTE ]
If the thread were "What do you think is the best form of Universal Healthcare?" or "What do you like best about Universal Healthcare?" then I might agree with you, but ...

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you really believe the replies would be different? Not that I'm saying they should be different.

[kidcolin]

sorry.. just skimmed this monster thread, so hopefully this hasn't been posted for. If so my apologies.

Cool site with some movies and articles about national healthcare: www.freemarketcure.com . Gives some personal accounts from our friends in the great white north. It also doesn't pretend that our system is fine as is, in case you think it's some republican propaganda site.

I'm in agreement with most that national health care is pretty much inevitable. I also agree that this sucks. The reason it'll happen is for one reason and one reason only: it's "simple".

Hat tip to Boro, his posts were great. 30 short years ago, my father paid to have my older sister delivered out of pocket on a modest lumberjack's salary with no insurance. My how times have changed.

edit: This article in particular I found very interesting: http://freemarketcure.com/whynotgovhc.php

[kidcolin]

[ QUOTE ]

EDIT: Also, there is no argument in my "can't say" post. It is a literal fact that no other developed nation on earth is stupid enough to deprive millions of their own citizens of health care. There are no examples to shed light on the OP's question.

[/ QUOTE ]

link

Maybe this doesn't count because it's only 462,000 over a 30 year span.. but Scotland's kinda small.

[Copernicus]

This part is just so pathetic I cant even bear to read the rest.

"Social Security - I can't believe anyone would tout social security as a success story. Without significant reform, this entire system will be completely insolvent and stop functioning within our lifetime. <font color="red"> Actually the
"reforms" needed are quite minor, and are responses primarily to increases in longevity beyond those that ever could have been anticipated. Since when does a government program have to be static and predict everything that will happen in the future to be succesful? If business were held to that standard we'd still be riding horses. </font> Not only that, but social security offers PATHETIC returns as a retirement plan for most people based on what they put into the system. <font color="red"> What do you consider pathetic? If 6-7% return (a married worker with a non-working spouseI is pathetic, you beat it.</font> It's simply a redistribution of wealth. <font color="red">Yes its a minor redistribution of wealth. Do you even know in which direction? </font> A poor one at that."

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
This part is just so pathetic I cant even bear to read the rest.

"Social Security - I can't believe anyone would tout social security as a success story. Without significant reform, this entire system will be completely insolvent and stop functioning within our lifetime. <font color="red"> Actually the
"reforms" needed are quite minor, and are responses primarily to increases in longevity beyond those that ever could have been anticipated. Since when does a government program have to be static and predict everything that will happen in the future to be succesful? If business were held to that standard we'd still be riding horses. </font> Not only that, but social security offers PATHETIC returns as a retirement plan for most people based on what they put into the system. <font color="red"> What do you consider pathetic? If 6-7% return (a married worker with a non-working spouseI is pathetic, you beat it.</font> It's simply a redistribution of wealth. <font color="red">Yes its a minor redistribution of wealth. Do you even know in which direction? </font> A poor one at that."

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the part where they take the money that we pay into it and use it as a petty cash drawer for all the extra spending we decide to do instead of, well, you know, doing what they are supposed to do with it which is invest it so that it remains solvent and provides a return?

Is that part pathetic?

[One Outer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This part is just so pathetic I cant even bear to read the rest.

"Social Security - I can't believe anyone would tout social security as a success story. Without significant reform, this entire system will be completely insolvent and stop functioning within our lifetime. <font color="red"> Actually the
"reforms" needed are quite minor, and are responses primarily to increases in longevity beyond those that ever could have been anticipated. Since when does a government program have to be static and predict everything that will happen in the future to be succesful? If business were held to that standard we'd still be riding horses. </font> Not only that, but social security offers PATHETIC returns as a retirement plan for most people based on what they put into the system. <font color="red"> What do you consider pathetic? If 6-7% return (a married worker with a non-working spouseI is pathetic, you beat it.</font> It's simply a redistribution of wealth. <font color="red">Yes its a minor redistribution of wealth. Do you even know in which direction? </font> A poor one at that."

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the part where they take the money that we pay into it and use it as a petty cash drawer for all the extra spending we decide to do instead of, well, you know, doing what they are supposed to do with it which is invest it so that it remains solvent and provides a return?

Is that part pathetic?

[/ QUOTE ]

I like where you're going with this, but we have to take a more functional view. Essentially what they're doing is borrowing from social security to do more discretionary spending today. Which, in my view at least, is fine provided that the spending will have a good ROI in the long term and we can replenish social security. Things like education, health care, infrastructure and environmental protection are things this money should be going toward.

Instead the money is going to the war, corporate welfare and tax cuts. None of these offers any return on investment. That is the problem in my view. I think there are two different courses of action to correct this. First, we need to bite the bullet and pay more in taxes so that they can leave social security alone. This is stupid because I don't want to pay more for corporate welfare and the war, and nobody else does. Or they can spend the money differently. On things that matter. This is what we should be doing.

Copernicus, QFT on the SS post. Isn't the system solvent without any changes until like 2046 or something? Lol at people who think social security doesn't work or that it has fundamental problems.

[jogsxyz]

[ QUOTE ]

What about the part where they take the money that we pay into it and use it as a petty cash drawer for all the extra spending we decide to do instead of, well, you know, doing what they are supposed to do with it which is invest it so that it remains solvent and provides a return?

Is that part pathetic?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most workers only contributed half of their account. Only the self-employed get totally screwed.

[bills217]

[ QUOTE ]
Instead the money is going to the war, corporate welfare and tax cuts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Corporate welfare is a basic corporate right. Thank God the people in Washington see it my way.

I'd like to see you make your case against some of the poor CEO's out there who can barely afford to run their business. You've got what you need - that's all you care about.

That's why selfish people like you will always be a tiny, marginalized minority. People who care about poor corporations are better than you.