Who do you support for President, now that Fred has dropped out?

[P89]

Originally Posted by billamj

I don't like anyone in this band of idiots.

Me either.

"Those who cast the vote decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything." -Joesph Stalin

I still vote though...

[Koli01]

The government provides nothing. I don't want to pay for your health care thank you very much.

I also don't want to pay for peoples homes that choose to live in flood plains.

And I could go on and on.

It's my money, I earned it, let me decide where it should be spent.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by phillyd2

Yeah, I too once lived in CT. Up there socialism seems down right tame.

Interesting that Liberal use to once mean everybody free to do what they thought best but lately its all about more power to the government and the government having more control over even more aspects of our lives.

Slice it anyway you want but it all comes out to socialism. But I agree, Lets call if Liberal so nobody would notice.

Well, I mean Liberal in the modern American sense, not in the classical sense (Like most Americans, I use the term "Libertarianism", capitalized, in place of Classical Liberalism).

There seems to be a common but erroneous conflation here of socialism and statism. There are non-statist forms of socialism as well as statist forms of capitalism. However, due to the triumph of Marxist and Leninist organizations over other socialist currents in the last century, the statist forms of socialism are the ones which are most familiar to non-socialists. Add that to the simplistic ideology (and false dichtomy) of "collectivism" vs. "individualism" that the egoists have successfully convinced so many Americans of in the last few decades, the confusion is understandable. But still incorrect.

[Slim Pickens]

Originally Posted by Aran

So how do you guys feel about optional universal healthcare provided at a low cost by the government?

Absolutely opposed. The government doesn't do anything efficiently, first of all. Second of all, the cost in excess of the "low cost" that people pay would have to be paid by the taxpayers at large. Third, I don't think that ANYONE in this country should be dependent on the government for their healthcare, unless you like being a ward of the state.

No thanks. I say, repeal the excessive government regulation in this country and let the markets sort it out.

Slim

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by Slim Pickens

Take it easy, Debs, it's called humor. Furthermore, Hillary & Obama may not be ideologically pure and murderous enough to meet your definition of socialist, but they certainly advocate socialist policies...cough...forced universal healthcare...cough...

Shouldn't you be out rounding up collaborators or something?

Slim

Smart-ass.

Hillary and Obama can't even manage to support a single-payer healthcare system. Instead they want to make it like car insurance-- a mandate system still largely controlled by private carriers. In other words their plans for "universal healthcare" amount to an even bigger corporate welfare plan than Medicare Part D. A system that will fill the coffers of the biggest insurance carriers even more. Some socialists.

[P89]

Originally Posted by Aran

So how do you guys feel about optional universal healthcare provided at a low cost by the government?

Take a look at our neighbors to the north...works friggin great there.
That's why the come down here to have kids and get surgery. The docotrs up there don't give a shit because they are garenteed their pay with no repercussions no matter who they kill.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by Slim Pickens

Absolutely opposed. The government doesn't do anything efficiently, first of all.

Really, then care to explain why Medicare's administrative costs only account for 3% of their overall operating budget, while most big private carriers average between 30-45%

No thanks. I say, repeal the excessive government regulation in this country and let the markets sort it out.

Slim

Even many pro-capitalist economists will tell you some things are "market failures", and with ever-increasing costs and declining coverage, health insurance is shaping up to be one of them. Having multiple carriers has not lowered prices through competition, rather it has inflated costs through higher administrative costs, bureaucracy, red-tape and general inefficiency. You can only lay so much of the blame for that on government regulation-- the rest falls on the providers, the carriers and the whole inefficient patchwork system of compensation itself.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by P89

Take a look at our neighbors to the north...works friggin great there.
That's why the come down here to have kids and get surgery. The docotrs up there don't give a shit because they are garenteed their pay with no repercussions no matter who they kill.

Most Canadians I've talked with are satisfied with their system. People crossing the border for surgeries are usually doing so for elective surgeries.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Originally Posted by Koli01

I don't want to pay for your health care thank you very much.

You already do if you have health insurance. Insurance, even private insurance, is, by its nature, a collective system-- multiple people pay into it and multiple people collect. As long as there's health insurance, public or private, you will be paying for someone else's healthcare.

The current patchwork of private insurance carriers only serves to inflate costs by compartmentalizing provider compensation, increasing administration of compensation, and red-tape. Canada's system only has 1-2% of its costs as adminstrative (compare that with 30-40% for most private insurers here). Having a single insurer would be much more efficient than our current, disjointed, confusing system.

[Slim Pickens]

Originally Posted by Eugene V. Debs

Really, then care to explain why Medicare's administrative costs only account for 3% of their overall operating budget, while most big private carriers average between 30-45%



Even many pro-capitalist economists will tell you some things are "market failures", and with ever-increasing costs and declining coverage, health insurance is shaping up to be one of them. Having multiple carriers has not lowered prices through competition, rather it has inflated costs through higher administrative costs, bureaucracy, red-tape and general inefficiency. You can only lay so much of the blame for that on government regulation-- the rest falls on the providers, the carriers and the whole inefficient patchwork system of compensation itself.

Nice try, Debs. Here is a 19 page treatise comparing Medicare to the private sector:

http://www.cahi.org/cahi_contents/re...ublication.pdf

Furthermore, how can "pro-capitalist" economists claim that the US healthcare system is a "market failure" when it is so heavily regulated that market forces have NOTHING to do with the cost of healthcare in this country? Am I going to get a better price on an MRI if I shop around? Flatly, the answer is "no."

Slim